Agenda item

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 elsewhere and that the Environmental Health Officer and other regulatory advice would be considered. John Dadge explained how it was proposed to use a large griddle to filter soil and explained the use of a concrete crusher on site.

Officers in response to comments by John Dadge stated that the developments north of the applicant's site and the existing waste facility located to the west of the applicant's site had received planning permission before the current District Council's Local Plan and the County Council's Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan had been adopted. Therefore those proposals were considered against different planning policies and not those that were in force now.

Comments by Members included:-

·    An enquiry was made whether the application was outside of the County Council's Minerals and Waste Local Plan area. Officers confirmed that the application was outside of any of the site allocations or preferred area identified within the Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Site Locations document.

·         The application was in open countryside.

·         When Google map was examined the application site appeared a borderline case and the site could be classed as employment land.

On a motion by Councillor Mrs M J Overton MBE, seconded by Councillor I G Fleetwood, it was –

RESOLVED (12 votes for, 0 votes against and 0 abstentions)

That planning permission be refused for the reasons detailed in the report.