Agenda and minutes

It was noted that all Members had been lobbied by Amanda Suddaby, an objector, in connection with the two planning applications at North Kelsey Moor, Market Rasen (minutes 24 and 25).

Councillor I G Fleetwood requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he was the Chairman of West Lindsey District Council's Planning Committee when the two planning applications at North Kelsey Moor, Market Rasen had been considered by that Committee and he had withdrawn from the meeting (minutes 24 and 25).

Councillor I G Fleetwood requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he recognised John Money, who was speaking in connection with the planning application at Bourne, when he was North Kesteven District Council's representative on the County Council's Flood and Water Scrutiny Committee and stated that he had not discussed the application with him (minute 26).

Councillor L A Cawrey requested that a note should be made in the minutes that she recognised John Money, who was speaking in connection with the planning application at Bourne, when he was a District Councillor on North Kesteven District Council and added that she had not discussed the application with him (minute 26).

Councillor M J Overton MBE requested that a note should be made in the minutes that she recognised John Money, who was speaking in connection with the planning application at Bourne, when he was a District Councillor on North Kesteven District Council and added that she had not discussed the application with him (minute 26).

Councillor T A Ashton requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he was the local Member for Langrick, had requested that speed restrictions should be installed at this location, had not got involved in any discussions with officers and had kept an open mind until this meeting (minute 19).

Councillor R P H Reid requested that a note should be made in the minutes that he was the Portfolio holder for planning at South Kesteven District Council and was also the Ward Member forvthe planning application at Bourne (minute 26).

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors D Brailsford and H Spratt.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the previous meeting of the Committee held on 6 July 2020, be approved as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

(Note: Councillor N H Pepper joined the meeting)

The Committee received a report in connection with a request from a local business for the introduction of a new 40 mph speed limit on the B1189 through Martin Moor. Officers stated that investigations had indicated that this site might be considered a "Borderline Case", as defined within the Council's Speed Limit Policy.

On a motion by Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE, seconded by Councillor R P H Reid, it was –

RESOLVED (12 for, 0 against and 1 abstention)

That the request be considered as a "Borderline Case" and subject to the necessary consultation taking place the speed limit order process to reduce the current 60 mph speed limit to 40 mph as detailed in Appendix B of the report, be approved.

The Committee received a report in connection with objections received to a proposed 30mph speed restriction in the village of Great Limber, near Caistor.

The report detailed the objections received and the responses of officers to the objections.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor T A Ashton, it was -

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the objections be overruled and the Order as advertised be confirmed and introduced as detailed in Appendix B of the report.

The Committee received a report in connection with requests for the reduction of existing 50 mph speed limits to 40 mph at Langrick B1192 and Sturton by Stow B1241. Officers stated that investigations had indicated that these sites were "Borderline Cases", as defined within the Council's Speed Limit Policy.

On a motion by Councillor T A Ashton, seconded by Councillor P A Skinner, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the requests be considered as "Borderline Cases" and subject to the necessary consultation taking place the speed limit order process to reduce the current the speed limits to 40 mph as detailed in Appendices B and D of the report, be approved.

The Committee received a report in connection with a request for the reduction of the existing 60 mph speed limit to 40 mph on Lincoln Road, Skellingthorpe. Officers stated that investigations had indicated that this site was a "Borderline Case", as defined within the Council's Speed Limit Policy.

On a motion by Councillor S Roe, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the request be considered as a "Borderline Case" and subject to the necessary consultation taking place the speed limit order process to reduce the current 60 mph speed limit to 40 mph as detailed in Appendix B of the report, be approved.

The Committee received a report in connection with a request from East Keal Parish Council for the existing 40mph speed limit on the A16 through East Keal to be reduced to 30mph. Officers stated that investigations had indicated that this site might be considered a 'Borderline Case', as defined within the Council's Speed Limit Policy.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor D McNally, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimous)

That the request be considered as a "Borderline Case" and subject to the necessary consultation taking place the speed limit order process to reduce the existing 40mph speed limit to 30mph as detailed in Appendix B of the report, be approved.

The Committee received a report in connection with objections to waiting restrictions proposed at Claypole, Rectory Lane, School Lane and Main Street following the statutory consultation carried out last year and public advertisement earlier this year.

The report detailed the objections received and the comments of officers on the objections.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor R H P Reid, it was –

RESOLVED (12 for, 0 against and 1 abstention)

That the public advertisement of the amended proposals as detailed at Appendix B of the report, be approved.

Since the publication of the report officers reported that additional comments had been received in connection with the application. These comments had been circulated to members in the Committee's update and had been placed on the Council's website to be viewed by the public. A further representation had been received since the update was published but this did not raise any further material planning issues that had not already been addressed in the report.

Amanda Suddaby, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         Six years, six applications, over 20 different planning conditions, 100s of objections and still no real work begun.

·         Six years of stress for local people to whom this development would bring no benefit – only harm.

·         It was disingenuous to claim that Covid had caused the delay - so clearly untrue.

·         Misrepresentations had characterised this project, including hollow claims about oil prices, jobs, taxes and energy security.  The jobs would go to a few specialized personnel from elsewhere, Egdon did not pay taxes (they ran at a loss), and arguments about energy security were untenable. 

·         The site might produce 50 barrels a day (200 if it far exceeds Egdon’s expectations). 50 bpd was less than 1/3 of 1/100^th of 1% of UK consumption - 0.003%. It was negligible, but the harm to local communities and habitat was significant.  It could so easily be replaced by renewable energy, better for the economy and planet.

·         We were at a crossroads. Covid had proved that we could change and people were willing to make sacrifices for the greater good and for the safety of the young and vulnerable.  We must do the same with climate change.

·         Parliament had committed to the 2050 target. This required rapid changes across the economyand all aspects of society. Everyone needed to be involved in reaching this target at all levels of government starting now.

·         Concerns about climate and ecological breakdown were escalating. We knew our future depended upon protecting the environment.

·         Yet, here, we had an Ecological Appraisal that was more than three years old, compromised drain access and only part of the site had been assessed by the Environment Agency.  All the areas that might not comply with regulations were simply excluded.  And no EIA.

·         I, like others listening, knew that it was difficult for the Committee to say “no” to oil development, but you could make decisions based on current evidence. This was no longer sustainable development.

·         People of Lincolnshire would applaud your courage and vision if you seized this opportunity and choose to protect us today.

·         Egdon had had six years and the world had changed. Enough was enough. Please refuse this application.

Amanda Suddaby was not asked any questions by Members.

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

·         Planning permission was granted to Egdon for an extension of time in May 2018. Objectors immediately launched a judicial review of the validity of the Council’s decision in the High Court. Although the challenge was successfully dismissed by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 24.

Since the publication of the report officers reported that additional comments had been received in connection with the application. These comments had been circulated to members in the Committee's update and had been placed on the Council's website to be viewed by the public. A further representation had been received since the update was published but this did not raise any further material planning issues that had not already been addressed in the report.

Amanda Suddaby, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         I was deeply disappointed by the previous vote but I would like to thank those Councillors who felt able to heed the concerns of local people.  I hoped the full Committee would continue to bear those concerns in mind because I would wager that Egdon would be back asking for more and North Kelsey would not be restored by the end of next year.

·         I had two requests in connection with the security compound extension - the first was that an updated Ecological Appraisal should be conducted to take account of the impact of extra security lighting introduced last year along with the security compound. I had already covered the reasons for this previously and in correspondence and the second was in regard to working hours. Last July, Egdon requested an increase in working hours for both sites. Thankfully, you voted against this to protect local communities from the disturbance that would arise from longer working hours.

·         At the time the open report to the Committee stated that “hours of work for the security site would be carried out in line with the adjacent well site” but this was not carried through in the Decision Notice issued by the Planning Officer after the meeting. Instead they allowed the extension of hours for the security compound.

·         When queried, I was told that the Committee should have taken the vote twice for it to count-even though the security compound hours were supposed to align with those of the main site, on which you had clearly voted.

·         So we now had two sets of operating hours on the same site which would only lead to confusion and make enforcement difficult.

·         To simplify this, could one of the Councillors propose that the hours for the construction and restoration of the security compound be brought into line with those of the main site, namely, stopping work at 5.30pm on weekdays.

·         I believed this was the Committee’s intention last year and I would be grateful if you would please rectify this procedural misunderstanding.

There were not any questions asked of Amanda Suddaby.

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

·         This application was directly linked to the previous application for the extension of time for the well site.

·         The security compound laid directly adjacent to the well site and was needed to ensure that the well site remained secure during all stages of development.

·         Egdon had a duty of care to ensure that subcontracted workers, suppliers, deliveries and visitors were protected.  In view  ...  view the full minutes text for item 25.

John Money, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         I refer you to my objection as paraphrased in paragraph 14 of the excellent officer's report. The company adjacent to the application site operated a business manufacturing products for the health and food industries including high level PPE.

·         Our very grave concerns were the fine minute particles of predominantly silica and other undetected deleterious materials that if approved would emanate from this plant.

·         The crushing of recyclable materials sourced mainly from demolition sites, brick, concrete and natural stone, all contained high levels of silica, when inhaled it could cause silicosis, COPD, and lung cancer, not to mention other deleterious material partials such as asbestos, lead, and of course bird droppings, dry particles of these materials were injurious to health when inhaled.

·         It was almost impossible to separate these materials out of the masonry rubble.

·         This proposed site was 50m from the company, the open doors of the loading bays faced the site, also those air born fine particles would enter the air handling equipment which managed air quality on the shop floor.

·         An ultra-sterile process environment alongside, if approved, a very dirty one, was unacceptable.

·         The officer stated in paragraph 26 of the report, if dust and noise were the only factors permission might be recommended with conditions to mitigate the pollution. I would challenge this statement in this case. I had researched dust suppression systems in some detail such as mist air, for this system to work efficiently the site had to be surrounded by a 6m high solid fence or boundary treatment. This would also be needed to provide an effective acoustic barrier. Operatives did not like these systems as it was like working in a wet fog, so invariably they were switched off.

·         For these and all other reasons quoted in the officer’s report, I ask for this application to be refused.

There were not any questions asked by Members of John Money.

John Dadge, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         The effects of the application would be mitigated by dust suppression measures as described in the report.

·         The proposed site was next to the Johnson's group site and they had not objected to the application.

·         It was noted that South Kesteven District Council did not have any objections and the application met the requirements of their Local Plan.

·         A waste recycling plant already existed to the north west of this site and had been given approval.

·         New developments already existed in the open countryside near the applicant's site.

·         The applicant's company had grown rapidly and supported the construction industry.

·         The applicant was aware of the need for sustainability.

A Member asked John Dadge about the conditions required for the application site especially the various dust suppression measures as it was her understanding that water filter systems were difficult to keep clear. John Dadge stated that he was not a technical expert in this area but stated that dust suppression measures proposed by the applicant were in common use  ...  view the full minutes text for item 26.