Agenda item

Note:              The meeting reconvened at 8:40pm and a returning roll call was undertaken to confirm all Members were present. This was confirmed.

The Chairman introduced planning application number 140986 for a new 60m x 50m liquid fertiliser storage lagoon being variation of condition 5 of planning permission 134838 granted 17 October 2016 - lagoon covering. The Senior Development Management Officer explained there was one update that the Environment Agency had commented that as they did not recommend condition five, they did not wish to comment. He also confirmed the decision was to be made on the requested variation of conditions.

The Chairman stated there were two registered speakers, one of whom had requested his statement be read out on his behalf. The Democratic and Civic Officer was invited to do this.

Statement from Dr Basu

“With regards to this issue, below are my persistent concerns that have been fed back before. I would grateful if these could be addressed as they are specified in the initial planning documents, before permission is granted.

I am still unclear whether the straw cover is as robust as the HEXA cover due to the fragility of straw. Other concerns that we have:

This slurry tank was built 2 years ago however it seems that the obligations on the original planning documents have not been met, Unfortunately i do not have the reference number for the original application with me, however i hope you can access this from the postcode. The concerns are:

1.. fence around the slurry pit has not been built as written on the initial application

2.. securing entrance to the slurry pit not created

3.. mechanism ensuring no slurry leaks away from the pit- unsure if checks were done to ensure this has happened

4..there are also concerns that the slurry is being used in a nitrate vulnerable zone where we live.

5.. The road is evidently not suited for the heavy tractors that carry liquid from the slurry pit as there are significant numbers of deep pot-holes; these have not been repaired despite multiple complaints to the council.

6.. similar concerns were raised on 16th February 2017, as per the comments below:

Please could you advise as to whether the above planning application has been inspected and signed off?

I have serious concerns about the safety and security of the site. It is accessible to the public with what I would consider inadequate fencing. Please could you confirm that the site conforms to the relevant health and safety requirements for an open slurry lagoon.

I cannot find any email reply to this.

I believe our neighbours at the same location has already raised similar concerns and I am unsure if these have been addressed.

Thank you for allowing me to raise the concerns. I would be grateful if these could be adequately dealt with.”

The Chairman invited Councillor L. Rollings, Ward Member, to address the Committee.

Councillor Rollings explained that she spoke on behalf of the residents of the local area. She stated there had been several complaints made about the lack of secure fencing, the fact the lagoon was not covered and the risk this posed to wildlife and residents. She highlighted there were no warning signs on the approach to the lagoon and there was no leak detection system. She stated there were several enforcement issues which should be dealt with. She explained that the current straw covering was inadequate, unsafe and there was no reason for the conditions to be changed. 

The Officer explained that the purpose of discussions were just to consider the variation of condition five, that, should the proposal not be accepted, the condition would remain as it currently was. He acknowledged there was ongoing work with regards to other issues at the site but that did not impact the matter of the lagoon cover, as detailed in condition five. He also stated that Environmental Protection had not received any complaints regarding this site.

There was considerable discussion regarding the nature of the site, the suitability of a secure cover and also health and safety considerations. The Legal Advisor reminded Members that health and safety was not a consideration for planning decisions. The Senior Development Management Officer advised that the Authority’s Enforcement Team were aware of the site and that the other conditions on the permission would be amended to allow the applicant time to deal with the health and safety issues such as perimeter fencing. There was also further explanation of the nature of coverage available for such a site and the impact of not varying the condition.

The Chairman moved the printed recommendation to grant the variation, this was seconded and voted upon. Through majority vote, the recommendation was not agreed. The Chairman requested an alternative proposal along with policy reasons.

It was subsequently proposed that the variation to condition five was refused in accordance with LP26 and to protect from odour and impact on amenity. This was seconded and voted upon. It was subsequently agreed that the permission be REFUSED for the following reason:

1.    The hexa-cover floating cover required by condition 5 of planning permission 134838 was still considered as necessary and reasonable mitigation in order to acceptably manage the release of odours from the lagoon in the interests of amenity, in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework and policy LP26 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2012-2036.

NOTE:           The Chairman stood down from the Committee at this point for the duration of the next agenda item.