Agenda item

(Note: The Chairman reminded the Committee that only those members who had attended the site visit to the application site on 3 February 2020 could speak and vote on this matter (see notes of the site visit (minute 66)

Officers report that Mr Asquith, who had spoken as an objector at the meeting on 13 January 2020, when this application had first been considered, had asked if this item could be deferred to the April meeting as he was unable to attend this meeting. Mr Asquith stated that the application had been extended time and again for the applicant and therefore he felt that the only just and fair way for it to conclude was by allowing him to present his objections at the meeting again.

Officers stated that Mr Asquith’s objections were summarised within the January report and were also heard by the Committee in his oral presentation to that meeting. The absence of Mr Asquith did not therefore alter the information available to the Committee and so it was not necessary to further delay determining this application at this time.

Officers reported that since the meeting on 13 January 2020, that it had not been possible to reach an agreement with the applicant regarding the type of lid that would need to be fitted to the tank in order for this development to be deemed acceptable and that the applicant had said that a fixed lid would lead to the build-up of gases. Officers stated that the Environment Agency and Environmental Health Officer at West Lindsey District Council, both statutory consultees, had had some concerns about the type of lid proposed by the applicant and these concerns were outlined in the report.

Chris O’Donoghue, representing the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         Consultations involving various agencies, including the NFU, the Environment Agency and other interested parties, were still on-going in connection with the most effective means of covering these type of storage tanks.

·         A completely sealed unit would lead to methane gas being produced which was dangerous.

·         An unvented cover could be split by rain water collecting on the surface.

·         If the tank was covered it would not be possible to stir its contents.

·         Any crust forming on the surface of the stored material would lead to an expansion of the material and therefore the tank's storage capacity would be reduced.

·         The preference was to use a floating cover or "aerocover" which comprised a ceramic aggregate type material that floated on the surface of the stored liquid.

Questions by members included:-

·    As there was no fixed cover what would happen in the event of an overspill? Chris O'Donoghue stated that the use of a floating cover would prevent this happening and also took into account weather conditions.

·    What provision was made for spillage on site? Chris O'Donoghue stated that details of dealing with any spillage had been provided to the planning authority.

Officers stated that the Environment Agency had submitted comments about the "aerocover" in the report but they still had concerns about odour.

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

RESOLVED (8 votes for, 0 against and 0 abstentions)

That the application be refused for the reason detailed in the supplementary report.