Agenda item

The Committee received a report which sought planning permission byEnvirotyre UK Limited (Agent: Robert Doughty Consultancy Limited) to remove condition 6 of planning permission B/16/0217 – To allow outside storage of tyres when the site was not in operation at Reed Point, Spalding Road, Sutterton.

It was reported that further to the publication of the agenda, the applicant had provided a plan showing the areas and quantities of tyres to be stored outside. The plan was attached to the update which had been circulated to the Committee the previous Friday and published on the website.

The storage areas accorded with the Environment Agency guidelines for storage of waste (pile sizes and distances from boundaries/buildings) and planning officers were therefore confident that the storage as shown could be incorporated into a variation of the existing Environmental Permit.

David Matthews an objector, was unable to attend the meeting but had requested his objection be read out at the meeting. The following points were read out by the Democratic Services Officer as follows:-

·         'I spoke at the original hearing when the planning officer promised him personally and the meeting in general that the extremely dangerous suggestion that tyres that were made of oil, very volatile, be left in the open outside working hours.  In 2004 in Kirton, within 5Km of the site, it was graphically demonstrated the risks (Health and Safety Act 1974 and later EU directives still in English law) were not acceptable.  If anyone was killed both the operator and the council were guilty of manslaughter'.

·         I am of the opinion that the operator accepted the original conditions and should be made, for the safety of the residents of Sutterton and beyond to keep to them or close down.  I am extra very concerned, as a retired professional Engineer, who understands these things, for both my own health and that of my neighbours, particularly, like me, those who live to the East of the site with a normally prevailing West wind'.  

Mr Matthews had asked that it be made clear that he would consider himself an expert in this issue.

Lewis Smith, Agent, spoke on behalf of the applicant and made the following points:-

·         Envirotyre had been operating from the purpose-designed site at Sutterton since 2015. During that time, the business had continued to thrive and now employed 20 local people. The operation was very straightforward in that waste tyres were brought to the site and then put in bales which were used to line landfill sites around the country.

·         The company accepted waste tyres from surrounding district and county councils, large businesses, and all the way down to the local famer

·         The business provided an essential service within the county and there was a need for a businesses such as Envirotyre.

·         The site at Sutterton was constructed for this use, from scratch, following the cessation of the former haulage use.

·         A new building had been erected, and a new concrete yard constructed under which there was a bespoke drainage system with storage that captured surface water. In the unlikely event of a fire, the fire water would be isolated from the field drains beyond the site boundary. There was a 2m high secure palisade fence surrounding the site and a CCTV system was linked to four mobile phones to provide both security and an alarm in the unlikely event of a fire. Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Service at Kirton had a good relationship with the applicant company to a point where organised drills were carried out at the site for training purposes.

·         The proposal before members allowed more efficient working practises in that tyres and bales would not need to be taken in and out of the building at the end and start of each day. The officer report also pointed out that there would arguably be greater impact on the nearby resident from having to operate in accordance with the condition.

·         There were two dwellings at the front of the site, one was owned by the applicant and the other was occupied in association with an adjacent waste wood facility. The next nearest dwellings were some 120m to the north and on the other side of the building on site.

·         Views of the site were predominantly fleeting ones from the A17, and these had the backdrop of the existing building, plus the 2m high palisade to the front.

·         Ultimately, once space was retained for vehicles to enter and leave the site in forward gear, the areas left over for storage, inside the security fence, were quite small. The requirement to comply with Environment Agency guidelines also impacted on where the tyres and bales could be stored. 

·         The Environment Agency monitored the site as part of the approved Environmental Permit and this ensured that the business operated safely and with no impact on the local environment or local residents.

Councillor M Brookes, Boston Rural Division, spoke as an objector and made the following points:

·         He confirmed that he understood the reasons for the application coming forward and was pleased to see a business being successful and growing, but not at any price.

·         There were several local objections and Sutterton Parish Council had also objected to the application.

·         This had been a contentious issue since the site was first granted permission on appeal in 2012. The planning inspector at that time had granted permission with a condition 6 - that there should be no outside storage of tyres on site at any time. The condition had been subsequently eased by the Planning Committee in 2015 to allow storage of tyres outside during the hours of operation.

·         The latest application was to remove the condition completely, allowing tyres to be stored outside all of the time. The condition was slowly being chipped away at until it was gone. He asked what had changed in this time to make the storage of tyres any less of an imposition on the local amenity than it was previously? The applicant stated in a covering letter that the effect of the removal of the Condition would be that in general, tyres would be able to be left outside during the hours of darkness, but the statement had ignored Saturday afternoons and all-day Sunday and Bank Holidays, which was clearly a large chunk of daylight hours.

·         In addition to the usual residential amenity issues, in the objections there were many references to fire. He had been a member of the Planning Committee when the first application for the site was considered. In 2003 there had been a huge fire at a large tyre stack nearby in Kirton which burned for several days and people were evacuated from their homes and spent nights away with relatives and friends. The fire had resulted in a great deal of contamination around the area. This was still fresh in people’s minds when the planning application came forward and many were extremely frightened of a similar event. He recalled in reports at that time reference had been made to the fear of fire being a consideration when determining that application and residents were still worried about this. In paragraph 10 on page 121 of the officer's report it referred to - Ensuring development appropriate for its location, taking into account the likely effects on health and living conditions. Unfortunately, the Planning Inspector who had overturned the planning committee decision to refuse at that time had not given specific reasons, but if the public were worrying about fire and its consequences it could be affecting their health. 

·         He supported the residents and the Parish Council in their objections to the application and asked what had changed in respect of the effect of the operations on residential amenity?

The Head of Planning reported that the fire in Kirton in 2004 was at an unauthorised site which was not subject to any controls. He suggested that as businesses developed, requests to vary conditions were sometimes to be expected. There were processes for public consultation and it was legitimate to request planning application changes. Impacts of some changes could be accommodated without impact to the environment.  He confirmed following a question from a member that there were no proposals to increase the height of the tyres stored.

Members were provided with the opportunity to discuss the applications as presented and some of the points raised included the following:-

·         It was thought that if permission was granted then screening would be essential.

·         The Committee recognised the importance of supporting business expansion but this needed to be balanced against the objections of local residents and on the impact on the amenity, landscape and quality of life.

·         There was disappointment that Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue had not submitted a response on the application.

·         Discussion took place regarding the risks and impacts on the local area and wider city should a fire break out. Also on whether there would be would be any difference should a fire break out inside the storage facility or outside of it, should the tyres be stored outside.

·         There was a suggestion that the application should be rejected on the same grounds as the Planning Inspector had previously used i.e. to protect the residential amenity and character of the area.

On a motion by Councillor M J Overton MBE and seconded by Councillor A M Newton, proposing the refusal of the application on the basis of Planning Policy DM3 – the effect on the quality of life and amenity and DM6 the impact on the landscape, it was:

RESOLVED (10 in favour, 5 against)

That conditional planning permission be refused and a report be submitted to the next meeting of the Committee confirming the reasons for refusal, as was the current custom and practice.