Agenda item

Phil Asquith, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         This tank was built a long time ago and as soon as tankers arrived the stench was unbelievable.

·         We complained to the Environmental Health who attended and smelt the tail end of the smell. Enquiries were made by them to see who owned the tank but this was not readily available.

·         Sheets were kept when the odour was particularly pungent. When we could smell it it was especially bad.

·         Eventually, I became aware of a retrospective planning application even though we were not notified as being the nearest building to this tank. There were no planning notices displayed locally nor did we see it in any local papers.

·         This application was made by a company with deep pockets and a more than obliging Council. I specifically made this comment due to the amount of time given to the applicant to slowly drip feed further information on to the planning portal without having to inform objectors or others.

·         The procedures which have allegedly been put into place were at best for you and not for the company to abide by. Examples of this were the wagons were supposed to enter by the most easterly point and exit by the most westerly point. This was for road safety to stop wagons from pulling out onto a 50mph speed limit on a bend when drivers would not be able to see each other and there had been close misses. There were not to be more than one tanker at a time and on several occasions there had been two and on one occasion three. The discharge times had stopped being in office hours and often took place before 7am or after 6pm. I questioned why this happened if everything was open and transparent. There was supposed to be someone there monitoring wind direction and if it was incorrect then there was to be no discharge. Well, that did not happen as the tankers always discharged and there was no cover over the tank to reduce the smell.

·         When we built our house we were aware of the chicken farm to the south for which we had never complained about because at its worst it is 20 times less obtrusive than the stench from this tank. We mitigated it by putting our air intake fans to the north of the property and we had to turn these off when the smell was so bad as it brought the full smell to the centre of the house.

·         When I rang Whites to follow their complaints procedure the reception stated we did not have one, this says it all.

·         The Environmental Agency had objected as the tank was near to a beck and as it was not bundled or monitored for long periods any leak would devastate the local wildlife.

·         When the smell was at its worst my grandchildren had to come in as they could not stomach the smell. This was not right and I, respectfully, request that you refuse this application or defer consideration for a site visit.

Questions to the Phil Asquith included:-

·         Had Phil Asquith been offered the use of a machine to monitor odour by West Lindsey District Council? Phil Asquith stated that West Lindsey District Council had visited the site but that they had not offered any machine to monitor odour.

·    Had Phil Asquith contacted Bigby Parish Council to seek their views? Phil Asquith stated that he had not contacted Bigby Parish Council due to health issues, stated that the local District Councillor was unaware of the issues and that access and egress to the site onto the A1184 was dangerous due to the speed of traffic on this road.

·    Did the problems of odour get worse caused when new materials were brought to the site and when the crust was broken? Phil Asquith stated that HGVs visits to the site varied and therefore a crust never had chance to form.

·    What was the frequency of HGV visits to the site? Phil Asquith stated that HGV visits to the site were frequent and that it was not unusual for 2/3 tankers to turn up at the same time.

Officers stated that the tanks were only used for the temporary storage of waste liquids when these could not be used on the land and this was more of an issue during the winter months when HGVs visited the site. Officers confirmed that highways did not have any issues with traffic movements to the site.

Comments by Members included:-

·         Was the waste delivered to the site non-hazardous? Officers stated that the waste delivered to the site was principally from the food and drinks industry and fell within specific European Waste Codes which were recognised as being suitable (subject to control) as an alternative to chemical fertilisers.The waste was applied to the land by a tractor trailing an umbilical cord.

·         The neighbouring local Division member, and a member of this Committee, stated that he was unaware of the issues raised by the objector. He was aware that access to and from the site onto the busy A1184 was an issue, stated that Bigby Parish Council was situated about 4 miles from the site and no one lived near to the site and that the use of a machine to measure odour was welcomed. Officers stated that in addition to any conditions imposed on the site by the County Council the Environment Agency also had a responsibility to monitor the site.

·         An enquiry was made on whether this was the only objection received to the application and whether there were other residents who lived in the area? Officers stated that the application site was in a remote location and not close to any residential settlements. The objector's property was located south east of the application site and was the only objection received.

Officers stated that a planning application would enable conditions to be imposed to address the various concerns raised by members.

On a motion by Councillor I G Fleetwood, seconded by Councillor C L Strange, it was –

RESOLVED (9 votes for and 1 vote against)

That consideration of the application be deferred pending a site visit and that the application be re-considered at the meeting of the Committee on 3 March 2020.