Agenda item

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission by DS Developing Limited (Agent: MAZE Planning Solutions) for the demolition of the existing animal by-products processing plant and all associated installations, and the construction of a new animal by-products processing plant, comprised of: raw material reception and processing buildings; engineers building; boiler house; oxidiser building and flue; DAF plant; effluent treatment plant; bio filter bed; general office; weighbridge and weighbridge office; hard standing areas for accessing the processing plant and for parking of cars, commercial vehicles and trailers used in connection with the operation; alterations to the existing site access from Jerusalem Road; and all associated development, including landscaping at Jerusalem Farm, Jerusalem Road, Skellingthorpe.

The application was the subject of an Environmental Impact Assessment submitted, pursuant to the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 and an Environmental Statement submitted in support of the application. The Environmental Statement assessed the potential impacts of the proposed development along with the mitigation measures proposed to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any significant adverse impacts.

It was reported that this was a very complex proposal and, like the previous application, there were a wide range of issues which needed to be carefully considered, including the principle of the development, highways, odour, noise, lighting, landscape and visual impacts, the natural environment, the historic environment, flood risk and drainage, design and alternatives.

It was reported that since the agenda had been published, a further representation had been received from North Kesteven District Councillors - Councillor Goldson and Councillor Johnston. A copy of their joint statement had been attached to the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday and published on the website.

Officers guided members through the report and set out the main issues to be considered in the determination of the application.

Andrew Watt, Agent for the applicant, MAZE Planning Solutions, spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:-

·         Since 2019, the applicant’s team had been working to directly address the Committee’s reasons for refusal of the first application.

·         The principle of redevelopment was to provide an entirely new and thoroughly modern processing plant, replacing the existing A.Hughes and Son operation. The replacement plant that was proposed in the planning application complied with the County and District Council’s Development Plan policies. The housing component of the 2019 development had been a key policy sticking point, so it had been deleted from the scheme. Other concerns were technical – relating to odour, noise and contaminated land. The applicant had carried out further work on those topics, all of which were documented in the updated Environmental Statement and further submissions made during consideration of the current application. The result of that additional work was the Officer recommendation for approval of planning permission.

·         The District Council was happy that all of its previous concerns had been addressed, and there was an absence of any objections from key statutory consultees, including the Environment Agency, Historic England and Natural England.

·         The processing of animal by-products in the UK was a highly specialised activity. The applicant’s parent Company, Leo Group, was investing group-wide in the renewal and upgrading of its animal by-products processing sites which were designed to be durable, easy to clean and incorporate modern air handling systems and odour control which was targeted at its source and channelled rapidly to efficient and effective odour abatement systems. The improved infrastructure required substantial investment but it delivered improved efficiency and environmental performance necessary to meet changing customer needs and minimise the environmental impact of operations on the local area.

·         The renewal that was proposed at Skellingthorpe would make it one of the most modern and technologically capable facilities in the UK, if not the world, because it would be built from scratch. It would bring an array of improvements at the site, incorporating the best available technology and techniques to ensure clean, efficient and reliable processing with good odour management and noise control.

·         Understandably there had been local concern about the impact the plant would have, and that had been heightened by the widely reported pollution and noise incidents that had been attributed in recent months to the existing processing plant operated by A Hughes and Son. The existing plant was ageing and the risk of repeat incidents remained unless and until there was substantial investment in the upgrading and renewal of the plant. Approval of the planning application would provide the pathway to that renewal.

County Councillor Dr M Thompson declared an interest in that he lived in  Hykeham West and made the following points:

·         The revised application dealt with a number of technical issues, but the recommendation to approve offered an opportunity to remedy problems which residents of “Smelly Skelly” had experienced over many years, and to ensure a better future, both for the village and the plant. If ignored, the wellbeing of local communities would continue to be adversely, and perhaps increasingly, affected.

·         In his consultee comments he referred to the site access and emphasised a number of concerns. The plans showed the site entrance at the apex of a 90 degree bend. During public consultation the applicant had previously made an offer to explore a new site access running directly from Black Lane behind Jerusalem Cottages. This was not included. He suggested it should be.

·       He referred members to Paragraph 73 of the Officer's report which sought to dismiss a possible routing restriction as being “unreasonable” and “nothing has changed” and in questioning this he submitted his reasons: (Paragraph 73 the “routing restriction was previously dismissed as being unreasonable” and “nothing has changed. The main road through Doddington village is a “B” class public highway, currently unrestricted in types of vehicle use” and “there is not sufficient justification to require a routing agreement given that HGVs can currently use this route”). He reported that there had been a number of incidents where lorries had run off, lost loads, had leaks of offensive material with substantial inconvenience and damage to highways infrastructure and private property. Restrictions were already in place on a number of adjoining roads.

·         Delay in implementing a requested TRO through Doddington village was due to a long running on-going dispute with Highways England about costs of signage, which had been raised with the Department for Transport by the MP.

·         He asked - What has changed? In 2016 Nottinghamshire County Council (NCC) had approved a TRO at Girton, since made permanent, to prevent HGV traffic using the A1133 through Collingham village from 7pm to 7am, to reduce the impact on village residents, despite objection from Lincolnshire County Council and despite being an “A” class public highway, which HGVs could use. Large signs at Winthorpe A46 roundabout, 6 miles away, showed alternative “A” road routes via A46/A57 (or A1/A57) with no account apparently taken of additional travel distance.

·         Further restrictions in the Spalford area increasing HGV traffic on Lincolnshire rural roads and through local villages were made permanent by NCC in October 2020, with consequent disturbance of residents, particularly at night, and road damage reported as FixMyStreet faults.

·         He requested that the Committee ensured that the interests of local communities were placed first and took full account of the impact which HGV traffic was having in his Division on village residents, and the Lincolnshire rural road network.

The Committee was provided with the opportunity to discuss the application and information presented and some of the points raised included the following:

·         Odour from the site had been noticed in other parts of the City at times and it was confirmed, following a question, that Lincoln City Council had not been consulted.

·         It was recognised that there had been concerns from residents about the development, however, a new purpose built site would address many of the historical issues.

·         Developments in technology and the introduction of the latest bio-filters since the original site had been built would mean that any odour emanating from the site would be significantly reduced. It was noted that there had been no objections from the Environment Agency.

·         There were some concerns about traffic volume, however it was noted that future traffic flows would be similar to existing flows. It was noted that there would be a Section 106 and conditions imposed on traffic routes in and out of the site and also a requirement for the site access to be improved.

Councillor L A Cawrey declared that she was a member of North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) and confirmed that she had not taken part in discussions when the application had been considered by NKDC.

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

RESOLVED (Unanimous, with the exception of Councillor S P Roe who had declared an interest and had left the meeting for consideration of this item)

That conditional planning permission be granted, subject to the conditions detailed in the report.

(Councillor S P Roe re-joined for the remainder of the meeting)