Agenda item

Proposal: Erection of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility and carbon capture, improvement of existing and part creation of new access track, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

Location: Development East of Sewstern Industrial Estate, South of Sewstern Road, Gunby, Lincolnshire NG33 5RD

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions.

Proposal: Erection of an anaerobic digestion (AD) facility and carbon capture, improvement of existing and part creation of new access track, landscaping and other associated infrastructure.

Location: Development East of Sewstern Industrial Estate, South of Sewstern Road, Gunby, Lincolnshire NG33 5RD

Recommendation: To authorise the Assistant Director – Planning & Growth to GRANT planning permission, subject to conditions

 

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

 

District Ward Councillors                               Cllr David Bellamy

                                                                       Cllr Ben Green

Parish Council’s                   Cllr Caroline Hainsworth (Stainby and Gunby Ward of Colsterworth and District).

                                               Mrs J Arnold (Buckminster Parish Council)

Against                                      Vanessa Tombs

                                                  Ron Simpson

 Applicant                           Phillipp Lukas (Chief Executive of Future Biogas)

 

Together with:

 

·       Provisions within SKDC Local Plan 2011-2036, Colsterworth and District Neighbourhood Plan, Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD, Design Guidelines for Rutland and South Kesteven, Renewable Energy Appendix 3, National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), National Policy Statement for Energy (EN1) and National Policy Statement for Renewable Energy (EN-3).

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire County Council – Highways.

·       Comments received from Anglian Water.

·       Comments received from Environmental Protection.

·       Comments received from Cadent Gas.

·       Comments received from Natural England.

·       Comments received from Heritage Lincolnshire.

·       Comments received from Leicestershire County Council – Highways.

·       Comments received from Environment Agency.

·       No comments received from Historic England.

·       Comments received from Melton Borough Council.

·       Comments received from CPRE Rutland.

·       Comments received from Colsterworth and District Parish Council.

·       Comments received from SKDC Conservation Officer.

·       No comments received from Rutland County Council – Highways.

·       Comments received from Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.

·       Comments received from SKDC Tree Officer.

·       Comments received from Councillor Ben Green.

·       Comments received from SKDC Design Officer.

·       Comments received from Buckminster Parish Council.

·       Comments received from South Witham Parish Council.

·       Comments received from Corby Glen Parish Council.

 

During questions to Public Speakers, Members commented on:

 

·       Clarification was sought around the difference between a smaller scale AD with the farming land surrounding it relating to a larger scale AD bringing crops from elsewhere.

·       The importance of an appeal statement on whether the land was agricultural or industrial.

 

It was noted that from the appeal decisions, the Inspector had a view that products being transported to the AD from outside the area at over 50,000 tonnes per annum, it would be on an industrial scale.

 

·       Further clarification around a statement made on endless HGV traffic.

 

It was felt that the nature of these plans demanded vehicles of such nature continuously on a daily basis which the Speaker felt was inappropriate with existing infrastructures on site.

 

·       Whether the HGV movements was 70 vehicular movements a day or 140.

 

It was confirmed that the 70 movements a day from HGV vehicles would be 1 trip in and out the site.

 

·       The impact on overspill materials outside of the 50,000 tonnes was queried.

 

Concern was raised on road structures through local villages and also an impact on A1 closures. Further concern was raised on the development being operational before the access road works had taken place.

 

·       Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) having no objection to the plans.

 

The Public Speaker felt asif anybody visiting the site would reach an alternative opinion to Lincolnshire County Council (Highways).

 

·       Whether the scale of the proposal was the main issue.

 

The Public Speaker had no objections to schemes of this nature. However, the location and landscaping of the scheme was not appropriate for the scale of the development. It was felt the roads could not accommodate any additional vehicles or HGV’s.

 

·       Clarification was sought around the 163% increase on traffic movements as stated by a Public Speaker.

 

It was clarified that the 163% increase on traffic movements had been received by the Parish Council on other reports and statistics that had been found to be severe during harvest.

 

·       The Public Speaker referred to sensitive receptors .The meaning of sensitive receptors was queried.

 

Sensitive receptors referred to evidence that should be considered for a number of recognised measuring activities relating to levels of noise and odours within the community.

 

·       Whether the CPRE would reject to any size or location of an AD.

 

The CPRE would normally accept a proportionally sized AD in the correct location which would cause minimal impact.

 

·       Whether the Public Speaker felt the AD proposal was too large on scale.

 

It was felt the AD proposal was far too big and was a commercial investment and not an energy contributor.

 

·       Whether the Applicant felt the proposal was a big scale in a rural area.

 

The Applicant compared the proposal to other existing AD sites across the country and the footprint was not bigger than other sites. It was highlighted that the proposal was not financially viable to be any smaller.

 

·       That the Committee were aware of tonnage coming into the site. It was queried how much tonnage would be leaving the site and how many movements this would equate to.

 

The Applicant confirmed that all tonnage was included within the movements and the vehicles being employed would have the ability to backhaul meaning the same vehicles would be delivering in and out. The local farms around the site would produce around 2000 tonnes of feedstock in and out, meaning vehicles would not access the Highway. 

 

·       The Applicant clarified that transportation would be within a 15-mile radius of the AD plant. It was queried which smaller villages would be affected by 50,000 tonnes being transported.

 

It was confirmed that crops would already be farmed, at harvest all material would be removed. Hub clamps were being sought from the East to the West of the B676 road, there should not be any material impact on other villages.

 

A benefit of a hub clamp model was to minimise the haulage and harvest, the crops on the AD plant would travel on average around 5 miles to a hub clamp.

 

·       One Member requested a virtual 360^o visualisation of the facility could be shown.

·       Clarification was sought around subsequent combustion of the gas.

 

The gas produced would be injected into the National Gas Grid on site and any combustion of the gas would be used for home/industry use.

 

·       That the site was considerably bigger compared to other AD sites with different areas and infrastructure.

 

The Applicant clarified they had 2 other AD sites that take 100,000 tonnes. 

 

·       Clarification was sought around the carbon capture and how it was stored.

 

Raw biogas would be produced and would bubble in the digester at a 50% Co2 and 50% methane. The carbon dioxide was taken from the atmosphere and plants grown in the previous season. It would then be liquified on site and would be transported off site by 1 or 2 movements a day around the Country for uses such as sustainable fuel or underground storage, in order to reverse the impacts of climate change.

 

·       Clarification was sought around the 15-mile radius.

 

The Applicant was unable to provide the exact fields the crops would be grown on, due to crop rotation. The proposed location was chosen deliberately for the access of the B676 to easily access West towards Melton and East beyond the A1 Road where there was suitable land for growing crops.

 

·       The specific types of crops proposed to be grown was requested.

 

The variety of crops would depend on rotations and the individual farms. It was likely that grass, cereals and maize would be grown depending on the type of land it was being grown on.

 

·       Concern was raised that maize was detrimental to soil. The percentage of crops was queried.

 

The Applicant clarified that maize was a water efficient plant that would need a small number of visits within growing season. More farmland would be utilised within crop rotation giving time for other farmers to decarbonise their farms and more opportunities for agronomy and blackgrass issues to be addressed.

 

·       Whether any sound, light or smell emissions would come from the AD plant 24 hours a day.

 

The lighting on site would be used to a minimum to not reflect off-site. Everything on the site would be noise shrouded, and no noise would be heard beyond the boundary of the site. There would be no smells that may come from the plant, there may be a slight sweet smell of silage, and the rest of the process was sealed to be an anaerobic process.

 

·       It was noted the Applicant had other AD plants elsewhere, the size of these AD plants were queried.

 

Government supported tariffs in the past meant that sites tended to be around 50-60,000 tonnes. The two largest sites of the Applicant’s were around 100,000 tonnes. The largest AD in the country were between 250-350,000 tonnes of input.

 

·       The number of people who would be employed on site was queried.

 

On site, there could be 7-9 operators, site mangers and engineers alongside the rural employment from the production and delivery of the crop.

 

·       A query was raised on burn off from the plant.

 

In the event of the gas grid not being able to take the gas or the equipment being defective. For safety purposes, there was a shrouded flare on site that would produce hot air that allowed the plant to convert the methane into carbon dioxide and safely discharge it.

 

The Applicant confirmed they did not currently know all locations of the farms where crops would be. However, they had received expressions of interest and looing in areas outlined previously.

 

·       Whether the storage of materials and the hubs would still need to be transported to the AD plant.

 

It was confirmed that storage of materials and the hubs would need to be transported to the AD plant, this was the nature of the vehicle movements throughout the year on a daily basis.

 

·       It was queried as to why the East to West hub clamp model was not built into the application.

 

Seeking hub clamps and farmers to grow required approval of a planning application so that the crops had a location to be digested at.

 

·       What surface would be provided for vehicles on the route from the B676 down the long track.

 

The long track was currently a metal surface access to the woodyard and used to be a railway line would become asphalted to avoid dust and noise.

 

·       What tonnage the long asphalted track proposed would be able to take.

 

The vehicle weight would be specified to Highways grade.

 

·       Whether the Applicant had been consulted by the Fire Brigade.

 

The Fire Brigade had been consulted and had visited all sites elsewhere. All sights had comprehensive lightning protection, which was a common start to fires in AD plants.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth informed the Committee that although the Applicant had offered a community fund, this was not being secured through a S106 agreement and therefore was not a material planning consideration.

 

During question to Officers and debate, Members commented on:

 

·       Whether the Country’s national aim to be carbon neutral by 2025 could be considered as a material consideration for the application.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth highlighted the Council had declared a climate emergency and the need to find alternative fuel sources which could be used as a material considered alongside the benefits of meeting climate change targets. This material consideration should be weighed up against other benefits or negative impacts.

 

·       That the application was contrary to an appeal statement on the scale size and location of the application.

·       It was felt the area had poor infrastructure and concerns were raised on traffic of HGV’s.

·       Concerns raised from local residents within the area.

·       Whether there was any scope for the HGV vehicles to be electric or gas powered.

 

The Senior Planning Officer was not certain on the types of vehicles that would be used. It was noted that the UK was dependant on fossil fuels which were delivered by gas networks in pipes and liquified product that was transported from outside of the UK, which would be carried via vehicle traffic, so the proposal would help reduce reliance on fossil fuels even if the scheme itself did not use electric vehicles.

 

·       Members discussed the rural diversification, and the fact crops could be transported up to 15 miles away. It was felt this application was an industrial process.

·       The need for biogas nationally was accepted, however, in the right place. It was noted that a more appropriate space, close to a A road would be more acceptable and therefore would not impact local amenities or be within rural countryside.

·       Concern was raised on the burn off from the AD. It was stated that each gram of methane burnt produced more than 3 grams of carbon dioxide.

·       Whether the proposed facility could agree with the 15 parameters within the document SR2021 (7) from the Environment Agency.

 

The Chairman informed the Committee of a report presented by Richard Buxton Solicitors with a transport technical note provided an alternative view of how to assess the impact of the HGV movements. This report outlined that both Highways authorities had considered the overall movement of HGV vehicles but had not taken into account the increased impact of HGV’s travelling through small rural villages. Concern was raised on movements and manoeuvrability to gain access to the site.

 

·       Fire & Rescue did not support the application, if it was to go ahead there would be a requirement of a significant amount of water within infrastructure and upgrade to the track access route for a fire engine to gain access if necessary. This representation could be found on page 78 of the report.

 

The Assistant Director for Planning and Growth clarified that rural diversification would not specify one farm and could be up to a number of farms within the rural business community.

 

The Committee were reminded to determine the application site and location as seen and were questioned with where an appropriate location for a site of this size would be in terms of vehicular HGV movements.

 

The Environment Agency’s document was a different consenting regime, and appropriate permits would need to be secured for the legislation. Planning uses should be considered alongside public benefits and harms.

 

·       It was highlighted that Anglian Water had stated this site was out of their boundary.

 

The representation received would mean that Anglian Water were not the responsible body for foul sewerage network. There had been no representations received for foul sewerage and drinking water. The water course and river would be the Environment Agency’s responsibility.

 

·       The Exposure and Safety of Anaerobic Digester Guidance outlined several high-profile incidents whereby serious injuries and deaths had occurred due to explosions. One Member reiterated comments received from Fire & Rescue with this information in mind.

·       Members questioned the response from Lincolnshire County Council (Highways) that the movements would not make a significant difference to traffic throughout the year.

 

(Councillor Harris Bisnauthsing left the meeting at 15:27)

 

It was clarified that the process being proposed was that the operation would be all year round, however, peaks in harvest may occur.

 

·       That a smaller AD plant would be preferred.

 

The Assistant Director of Planning and Growth confirmed that material considerations were included within the report. The policies around principle of development and renewable energy schemes should carry weight. Other material considerations would include the Council’s climate change declarations, reduction of fossil fuels and biodiversity net gain as well as vehicular impact.

 

It was confirmed that the appeal decision could not be considered when determining this application.

 

It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to REFUSE the application for the reasons discussed with final wording to be agreed deferred to the Assistant Director of Planning and Growth, in consultation with the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Planning Committee:

 

The proposal, including the required upgraded access route, would result in a large-scale, industrial development which is considered to be an inappropriate form of development in this countryside location. The large scale and industrial nature of the development proposal would result in an adverse impact on the landscape setting and character of the area, which would be reduced, but not fully mitigated by the proposed landscaping and planting scheme resulting in harm to the rural landscape of the Kesteven Uplands.

 

The proposal would additionally negatively impact on neighbouring villages and residents through disturbance from the generation of additional traffic movements on local roads. There is particular concern with increased numbers of HGV movements on minor rural roads, including through the neighbouring villages, that are used by vulnerable road users such as walkers, cyclists, horse riders and children. The mitigation of the site access road does not remove the concern regarding the increase in HGV movements through neighbouring villages, and the application does not suitably take into account or address the negative impacts from the development on the transport network or amenity of neighbouring communities.

 

It is acknowledged that the generation of renewable energy would be a significant benefit provided by the scheme, however, it is not considered to outweigh the harm from the development in terms of impact on landscape, character and appearance of the area, and the amenity of neighbouring residents. The development is therefore contrary to Local Plan Policy E7, EN1, EN4, DE1 and RE1, and paragraph 135 of the NPPF.

 

(The Committee had a 10 minute break)

 

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to continue the meeting until 17:00)