Agenda item

The Chairman introduced the application and invited the Officer to share his presentation. The Planning Officer confirmed that no updates had been received and proceeded with a summary of the proposal. The application sought permission for the installation of four silos at the RPC facility on Gallimore Lane Industrial Estate, Market Rasen. Two silos had been proposed to the north and two to the south of the site, each adjacent to existing silos.

 

West Lindsey District Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer had reviewed the proposed road widening and confirmed acceptance of the plan, subject to advisory conditions regarding the treatment of existing trees, which were to be included in any recommendation for approval.

 

Visuals were presented showing the proposed elevations and locations. It was noted that the southern silos would be partially obscured by existing structures. A plan showing proposed road widening at the rear of the site was included to facilitate vehicle access. The Landscape Officer had reviewed and accepted the proposal, subject to advisory conditions.

 

The site had been identified as part of an established employment area within the local development plan. The proposed silo locations were shown on existing hardstanding surfaces. Photographs were shown to illustrate the relationship of the site to nearby residential properties, including views from 25 Caistor Road and Sunnymede cottages.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated there were three speakers registered for this application, and invited Mr Alan Scoffin, as agent, to take his seat.

 

A statement was delivered by Mr Alan Scoffin of Ross Davies Associates, acting as the planning consultant on behalf of the applicant, Amcor (formerly known as RPC).

It was stated that the Gallimore Lane Industrial Estate had been established since the mid-1960s and had accommodated a range of industrial and commercial businesses. The site, originally known as the Plastic Box Company, had operated in various forms since that time. For over thirty years, the facility had produced specialist packaging for the healthcare, food and personal care sectors.

 

It was reported that the site currently employed 125 residents, thereby contributing to the local economy. The facility specialised in Injection Blow Moulding (IBM), a niche technology in the United Kingdom, which enabled the production of complex precision packaging with reduced waste compared to traditional methods.

 

It was explained that, to remain competitive, the site required periodic updates and modifications. A new project had been secured from a major global brand, which would utilise IBM technology and was expected to generate approximately £4.5 million in revenue. The project was anticipated to create at least twelve new jobs and support the long-term viability of the site.

 

To facilitate this development, permission was being sought for the installation of four new silos. These would support the storage and handling of materials specific to the new production line, including post-consumer recycled polymers. The proposal aligned with both the company’s and its clients’ sustainability objectives, particularly in reducing reliance on virgin polymers and lowering energy consumption.

 

It was concluded that the development would support local employment and reinforce Market Rasen’s role as a centre for sustainable specialist manufacturing.

 

The Chairman thanked Mr Scoffin for his statement and invited the second speaker, Mrs Karen Dowle, as objector, to take her seat. Mrs Dowle had provided two images on printed paper of her property, for the Members to view. The Democratic and Civic Officer distributed these whilst Mrs Dowle took her seat.

 

Mrs Dowle explained that both households were situated directly on the southern and southeastern boundaries of the RPC site. Objection was raised to the proposed installation of additional silos on the southern side of the factory, on the grounds of adverse impact on residential amenity.

 

A brief history of previous planning consents was outlined. It was stated that in 2003 and 2004, permission had been granted for five silos, including two on the southern side. It was reported that RPC had originally proposed all silos on the northern side but had been instructed by the Council to relocate two to the south. The interrelationship between the silos and neighbouring dwellings had been deemed acceptable at that time.

 

In 2018, further silos had been approved on the southern side despite objections. It was stated that the resulting seven silos had significantly affected the outlook, light, and noise environment of the neighbouring properties. It was further noted that landscaping conditions attached to the 2003 consent had not been implemented, and that existing vegetation had predated the development.

 

Mrs Dowle raised concerns regarding drainage, with reference to a riparian ditch located along the eastern boundary. It was stated that runoff from the site discharged into the ditch, which ultimately flowed into the River Rase. A flooding incident in 2002 was recalled, during which gardens and the speaker’s home had been inundated. It was asserted that RPC had failed to maintain the ditch, despite being responsible for it.

 

Noise impacts were described as severe and ongoing. It was stated that although forklift movements had been restricted during night hours, noise from silo filling, machinery, and roof-mounted air vents had become increasingly disruptive. It was reported that vibrations from factory operations had been felt within the dwelling, with supporting evidence, not shown to the Committee, recorded using a mobile application.

 

It was acknowledged that the speaker’s husband had been employed at the factory for over twenty years and that the success of the business was not opposed. However, it was argued that the southern side of the site had become overdeveloped, and that further intensification would be unacceptable. A suggestion was made that the new silos be relocated to the western side of the site, where space and access were considered more appropriate.

 

Doubts were expressed regarding the operational need for additional silos, given the reported underuse of existing machinery. Mrs Dowle raised questions as to whether existing silos could be repurposed or removed if obsolete.

 

Environmental concerns were also raised, particularly in relation to plastic waste and water discharge. A request was made for non-financial mitigation, including the planting of trees and shrubs, the installation of sound reducing fencing, and meaningful consultation with affected residents. It was stated that no engagement had taken place with the applicant.

 

Mrs Dowle concluded by questioning whether further silo applications would be submitted in future and called for a clear limit to be established. It was stated that, if necessary, the matter would be referred to the Environment Agency.

 

The Chairman thanked Mrs Dowle for her comments, and welcomed the final speaker on this application, Councillor Bunney, as Ward Member, to take his seat.

 

Councillor Bunney declared an interest that he sits on Market Rasen Town Council who had also discussed the application, he confirmed he was speaking in his capacity as a Member of the District Council, the County Council and Market Rasen Town Council.

 

Councillor Bunney stated that, in principle, support existed for industrial activity within Market Rasen Town, recognising the importance of employment and economic development. However, concern was expressed regarding the proposed location of the silos on the southern side of the site, which was near several residential properties, including Sunnymede cottages, 25 Caistor Road, and a nearby bungalow.

 

He acknowledged that noise, vibration, and drainage issues had been reported by residents. While he felt some of these matters could be mitigated through appropriate works, concern remained that the installation of four additional silos on the southern boundary would exacerbate existing problems.

 

It was suggested that alternative locations existed within the site where the silos could be accommodated, and that such options should have been explored through negotiation between the applicant and the planning authority. Concern was raised regarding the removal of a landscaped mound and several trees, which had previously provided partial screening. It was noted that the trees were deciduous and therefore did not offer year-round noise mitigation.

 

Reference was made to a proposed delivery time condition within the application, limiting activity to between 08:00 and 19:00 on weekdays. However, it was noted by Councillor Bunney that noise associated with the transfer of materials from tankers into silos could occur outside these hours, and that such operations had been reported by residents on both sides of Gallamore Lane.

 

Councillor Bunney acknowledged that living adjacent to an industrial site presented challenges, but it was emphasised that the affected properties were subject to significant and persistent noise. It was suggested that relocation of the silos to the western or northern sides of the site would be preferable. It was noted that a residential property existed to the north, but that it appeared to experience fewer issues due to the presence of mature trees.

 

The Chairman thanked Councillor Bunney for his comments and looked to the  Planning Officer to respond.

 

The Planning Officer confirmed that the site was an established employment area and that the proposed silos formed part of the factory’s expansion. It was stated that drainage would not be worsened, as existing storm drains would not receive additional runoff. Partial responsibility for the adjacent ditch had been acknowledged by the applicant, with maintenance reported.

 

A noise report had been requested, the results of which indicated low impact without mitigation. It was clarified that only two silos were proposed on the southern side, not four. West Lindsey District Council’s Tree and Landscape Officer had advised that the excavation works for road widening would not harm existing trees, which were unprotected and within the applicant’s ownership.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his response and opened the floor for discussion.

 

A Member of the Committee expressed understanding of the concerns raised by residents, based on prior experience working in an industrial setting adjacent to residential areas. Reference was made to the planning history, noting that previous silos had been directed to the southern side of the site. It was questioned why this location had been chosen, given the proximity to dwellings.

 

It was suggested that the western side of the site, which faced the wider industrial estate, would have been more appropriate. The Committee Member noted that in similar industrial contexts, noisy infrastructure was typically positioned away from residential boundaries to minimise disturbance. Clarification was requested regarding the original decision to locate silos near residential properties. The Officer confirmed that the question regarding the original placement of silos could not be answered, as they had not been involved in the earlier application and no documentation had been found to explain the decision.

 

A Member of the Committee noted that reference was made to the shared concerns expressed by the Ward Member, objectors, and the Town Council regarding the proposed location of the silos. It was suggested that the relocation of silos within the site might be feasible, as materials such as plastic pellets could be conveyed over distance using pressurised systems.

 

A question was raised as to whether any discussions had taken place with the applicant regarding alternative siting. It was confirmed by the Officer that no such discussions had occurred.

 

The Committee Member then proposed that the application might be deferred to allow for such engagement, with the aim of achieving a mutually acceptable outcome.

 

The Development Management Team Leader stated that during Officer site visits, the levels of noise and vibration reported by residents had not been observed. A noise impact assessment had been requested and submitted. The report indicated that the silos were active for an average of six minutes per hour, with noise occurring in two phases, increasing as materials were drawn into the ducting. The assessment concluded that the impact was low and that no mitigation was required. It was further stated that the addition of two further silos was not expected to result in a significant increase in noise. However, the Committee was advised by the Development Management Team Leader that it remained open to defer the application should it wish to explore alternative locations for the silos. The feasibility of such alternatives would need to be confirmed with the applicant.

 

A Member expressed support for deferring the application to allow further checks and requested that specific amendments be considered. Concern was raised regarding the removal of earth near the road and the potential impact on tree stability. It was suggested that structural support may be required to prevent root exposure and possible tree failure.

 

An amendment was proposed to include the planting of fast-growing screening species, between existing trees to enhance visual and acoustic screening. Additionally, concern was expressed regarding the proposed delivery hours, which excluded restrictions on weekends. An amendment was requested to extend delivery restrictions to Saturdays and Sundays.

 

It was confirmed by the Development Management Team Leader that the proposed delivery condition could be amended to include weekends.

 

The Development Management Team Leader advised that while discussions could be held with the applicant regarding alternative silo locations, the planning authority could only assess the application as submitted. It was also clarified that enforcement of riparian clearance fell under the remit of the Internal Drainage Board, not the Local Planning Authority.

 

Having been seconded and voted upon, it was

 

RESOLVED that the application be deferred in order for Officers to request further information regarding potential alternative locations for the proposed silos and/or appropriate mitigation measures in response to noise complaints.