Agenda item

Since the publication of the report officers reported that in the "Recommendations", 3^rd paragraph, "SG4" should be added after "SG3".

Jeremy Stock, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         He represented a locally based, small to medium sized business now employing 50 skilled staff. It undertook a range of infrastructure and civil projects nationally.

·         The application sought to recover waste, in particular, construction, demolition and excavation waste and put these to good use by producing soils and aggregate replacement products. These products would be used in the course of projects in which the applicant was involved.

·         It was important to note that within the Council's own policy document, there was an acknowledgement that there was a shortfall of available sites locally which could deal with these type of wastes. This fact was evident given the incidence of illegal activity and fly tipping in the area, including the layby which would form part of the site access.

·         The development would lead to additional jobs being created with plans to create 2 full time positions as well 2 apprenticeship places.

·         The main concern was associated with the location of the proposed site. The Committee report suggested that the ideal location for such a proposal was firstly Clay Lake to the south of Spalding, recently given the title "Gateway to Lincolnshire". This area already incorporated a service area, hotel and restaurant. The rest of the development was planned for a mix of housing, commercial and industrial uses.

·         The second area was to the North of Spalding was Wardentree Lane. This area had a range of businesses which included food processing, packaging, an abattoir, vehicle and machinery sales and various trade counters. These were at odds with the recovery of waste. The proposal would not sit comfortably within either suggested location.

·         Nevertheless, approaches had been made to landlords, decision makers and land managers in both locations to better understand their appetite for this proposal. It might come as no surprise that they did not have land available given the likely conflict, if not in the short term, in the medium to long term period.

·         I understood and appreciated the comments received from those not supportive of the proposal. However, there was already a well-established waste management operation adjacent.

·         The suggested site was positioned 4.8 miles from the southern boundary of Spalding which could be travelled in less than 8 minutes.

·         The on-site processing would include crushing and screening by highly efficient and sophisticated equipment. These same machines were used in town centres and built up areas and met the latest environmental noise, vibration and dust controls. It should be noted that the screen and crusher would only operate occasionally.

·         In summary, the application would provide many benefits including job creation, the recovery of waste and the reduction in waste miles.

There were no questions asked by members of the applicant.

Comments made by members included:-

·         The application site was not identified in an adopted or emerging Local Plan as existing or planned industrial/employment land.

·         It was hoped that officers would be able to help the applicant find an alternative site due to the existing approved sites around Spalding being inappropriate for the type of use requested by the applicant.

·         Access to the application site would have to come from the south instead of using Barrier Bank. Officers confirmed that there was a weight restriction north of the site on Barrier Bank which prevented HGVs travelling north.

On a motion by Councillor N H Pepper, seconded by Councillor Mrs A M Newton, it was –

RESOLVED (unanimously)

That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report, subject to the addition of "SG4" after "SG3" in paragraph 3 of the recommendation.