Agenda item

Stephen Flanagan, an objector, commented as follows:-

·         Permission to build the plant was originally given by North Kesteven District Council (NKDC) and had been a contentious decision.

·         NKDC stated it was unlikely that they would have supported any proposal for a commercial waste anaerobic digester plant had it been submitted in that format at the outset.

·         Please do not treat this as a switch of use to a commercial concern.  At a NKDC Planning meeting it was suggested that the applicant would eventually switch to waste products but this had been denied. 

·         Reference was made to an application the applicant had submitted at Nocton Fen which had been refused by NKDC because of the materials the applicant was proposing to use. The applicant had ignored the planning conditions and had built differently to what had been approved.

·         Reference was made to numerous planning applications that had been refused due to concerns about odour from waste products. Stated that objections from MPs and Councillors to close down some anaerobic digester sites because of odour.

·         A lot of sites had gained initial approval on restricted crop inputs and had subsequently switched to the use of waste products to the regret of local residents.

·         This site had been built too near residential properties with 200 new homes proposed only 350 meters away.

No questions were asked of the objector.

Robert Beck, the applicant, commented as follows:-

·         The operation of the plant and its history was explained.

·         Clean energy was produced for the generation of electricity.

·         Feedstock could not be burnt.

·         The plant had operated for two years and no complaints had been received about odour.

·         The plant would benefit from a greater range of feedstocks.

·         The plant was located near to farms producing poultry litter and this could be transported to the plant on the local highway network.

·         The Government wished to encourage the development of these sites.

·         The plant supported local employment.

·         Renewable energy was green and economical.

·         The Environment Agency's waste licence would ensure that the site was properly controlled.

Questions by the Committee to Robert Beck and his responses, included:-

·         Similar anaerobic digesters had experienced major issues with odour. Had you been involved in any of these plants? Robert Beck assumed the question was in connection with the Nocton plant but this had been nothing to do with odour and people were unaware of the facts.

·         Had the applicant any issues with odour from other plants? Robert Beck stated that he did not have any issues with odour.

·         Different crops were needed for an anaerobic digester. What transport arrangements were in place? Robert Beck explained the transport arrangements adding that there was no traffic impact. Syrup would be pumped directly into the digester and poultry litter would be fed in to it on a daily basis.

·         Anaerobic digesters needed to be well managed by using a combination of crops. Robert Beck stated that odour indicated inefficiency. He stated that waste, including crops left in the open, lost 30% of their energy and especially if allowed to warm up. Since the plant had been in operation there had not been any complaints about odour.

·         Leaching was an issue with the storage of poultry litter. Robert Beck stated that if it was necessary to store the poultry litter in exceptional circumstances then it would be stored on a sealed surface. Other than the existing consented silage, there were no proposals to store either liquid or solid wastes on site and so no new infrastructure or storage areas were required.

·         Had Robert Beck suitable arrangements with farmers for the collection of waste? Robert Beck stated that the logistics for the collection of waste were good.

·         Robert Beck stated in response to two questions that he liked to use heat from the plant for drying and that any excess waste was sent to the Sleaford Power Plant. He stated that the application would free up 2000 acres of agricultural land for production and poultry litter waste could be used as fertilizer.

Responses by officers to comments by the Committee, included:-

·         Poultry litter was not classed as food waste.

·         The proposed conditions for this application were largely the same as the original planning decision approved by NKDC.

·         The prevailing wind for the application site meant that on most occasions the odour would be blown away from the proposed new housing site.

·         Officers did not have any evidence about similar plants operating in the country and that the Committee should only examine the application before it today.

A member commented that if a similar application had been submitted today it would not receive planning permission because of the proposed new housing development in the vicinity of the site.

On a motion by Councillor D McNally, seconded by Councillor D Brailsford, it was –

RESOLVED (7 votes for, 3 votes against and 1 abstention)

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