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

Recommendation: To review the updated evidence submitted as part of the appeal and the position in defending the appeal

(Councillor David Bellamy removed himself from the Committee, due to speaking in objection to the application).

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

Recommendation: To review the updated evidence submitted as part of the appeal and the position in defending the appeal

Noting comments in the public speaking session by:

District Ward Councillor:                                             Councillor David Bellamy

Colsterworth, Stainby and Gunby Parish Council              Rebecca Chatterton

Against:                                         Vanessa Tombs (Community Action Group)

                                                                                  Gary Toogood

                                                                                   Janine Liladhar

The Ward Councillor commented on the scale of the development and whether it was appropriate development in open countryside. He stated it may not comply with policies E7 and SP5. He challenged the rural location in open countryside of the industrial site.

The Parish council representative stated the parish council view is that the reasons for refusal have not changed and asked the committee to keep to the decision to refuse. There was a challenge to the highways evidence provided by the applicant and LCC Highways. A concern was raised regarding the cumulative increased HGV traffic in the area in harvest time. The decision to locate the site in its rural position was challenged and consequential impact on the amenity of residents of the villages including dust and noise.

A speaker from BLOCK Action Group also stated that the site is incorrect for an industrial site and has called for Rule 6 status at the Public Enquiry and stated the officer report lacked analysis. LCC Highways report considers capacity and safety and other impacts had not been included. Leicestershire Highways had not identified a change in the highways report. New data collected when the B676 was closed to traffic. An independent expert had identified reasons for refusal. It is felt concerns raised regarding the impact on amenity and biodiversity had not been addressed. BLOCK considered that the new proposal did not overcome the original reasons for refusal.

Another public speaker had a farming background. He stated the significant use of crops for energy production would impact on food security. The application would extend the industrial area into the countryside, contrary to DE1 and EN1. He stated he was a retired member of the Institute of Highways Engineers and qualified Road Safety Auditor and raised the lack of a Road Safety plan. He also challenged the data collection. He queried the noise survey which did not cover the access road noise which could reach 90decibels and is above standard. Poor road surface conditions would also impact on the noise levels.

During questions to public speakers, Members commented on the following:

·       A query was raised on whether the traffic plan had been scuritnised by any members of the community.

The representative of Colsterworth, Stainby and Gunby Parish Council               confirmed a community group called ‘BLOCK’ and the Parish Council had been working together to provide a further traffic assessment.

·       One Member sought further clarification over a public speaker who had relevant qualifications, was previously a member of the Institute of Highways Engineers and qualified in road safety audits.

·       Further information was requested on what receptors and decibel levels were of concern in the area.

The Public Speaker clarified the access farm track would produce noise with a one HGV traveling down the track every 10 minutes. It was noted that an empty trailer can cause a reverberation noise that can be around a 90-decibel range which could be heard from a fair distance away. He stated that a lack of landscaping or banking will help reduce noise. He stated the long track must have passing places

·       A query was raised on whether the survey included noise and reverberations of an empty lorry and a loaded lorry.

The survey dealt with DMRB (Design Manual for Roads and Bridges) meaning motorways and major roads. The B676 was not a motorway or major road and therefore, the public speaker felt as if the information was not collected correctly due to a road closure.

It was highlighted that loaded lorries had a lower suspension noise and road noise as opposed to the echoing panels of the unstressed side of an empty lorry.

It was further clarified the noise would travel a significant distance. The start of the track was close to Stainby and many residents in Stainby would hear the noise.

·       Whether there was a difference between covered and uncovered HGV’s in relation to noise.

All HGV’s had to be covered by law, where it be by tarpaulin.

·       One Member requested specific information on comments made by a Public Speaker that the appeal was ‘error-ridden’.

The Public Speaker raised several concerns of the appeal and outlined the following:

·       20 letters posted to Inspectorate

·       No mention of traffic or local

·       Pistenbully noise and the number of them proposed to be used on site

The Public Speaker noted there was an existing storage place in Garthorpe and Garthorpe residents had not been consulted. Permission had been granted in January 2025 by Melton Mowbray Council to take stock from the fields and to and from the biogas site.

·       Concern was raised regarding the bus. The Applicant’s had confirmed any construction staff could use a bus to access the proposed site, however, the first bus that left Melton Mowbray in the morning was 10:10am, arrived at Buckminster at 10:30am and then would have a 30 minute walk to the biogas site. The last bus back to Melton Mowbray was 11:50am.

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to extend the meeting until 17:30)

Exclusion of public and press:

Under section 100(a) of the Local Government At 1972, the press and public were excluded from the meeting during any listed item of business on the grounds that if it were to be present, exempt information could be disclosed to them as defined in the relevant paragraph of schedule 12a of the Act.

(It was proposed, seconded and AGREED to go into closed session, for the Committee to receive legal advice).

The meeting resumed in open session at 17:25.

Final Decision:

Option 3: In light of the new further evidence, amendments and changes to the Highways evidence and proposal put before us, the Committee had resolved not to contest the appeal in respect of the previously stated reasons for refusal. However, the Council will query the legal adequacy of the environmental statement to the Planning Inspectorate due to the failure to appropriately assess the indirect effects of the production of the digestate resulting from the development as required by the case.