Agenda item

Members gave consideration to the second application on the agenda, application number WL/2025/00182, seeking planning permission for four silos, on land at RPC Containers Ltd, Gallamore Lane Industrial Estate, Market Rasen. The Officer explained that report had been updated to incorporate appropriate location assessments submitted by the Applicant, alongside updated information regarding landscaping proposals. A presentation was then given outlining the location and key features of the proposed development. It was noted that the scheme would necessitate road widening due to the positioning of the new southern silo, in order to maintain vehicular access around the rear of the industrial facility.

 

The Officer gave an overview of the proposed site, highlighting location, elevations and proposed silo locations. Since the previous Committee meeting, the Officer stated that a landscaping mitigation plan had been submitted, providing additional visual screening at a height of 1.8-2 metres for the southern silos. An alternative location plan had also been submitted by the Applicant, indicating various possible positions for the silos, as outlined in the report.

 

The Chairman thanked the Officer for his presentation and stated that there were three registered speakers; the first speaker, Mr Alan Scoffin, as Agent, was invited to address the Committee.

Mr Scoffin acknowledged that the concerns raised by local residents regarding noise levels, visual impact, and site traffic were fully appreciated. It was stated that a careful review of the concerns had been undertaken in consultation with the Planning Officer, with measures put in place to address the issues appropriately.

The Agent explained that the proposed silos were considered critical infrastructure necessary to support an imminent customer project. Due to the volume of material anticipated on site, it was highlighted that bulk storage was deemed the only feasible solution, as manual handling risks would be considered too high. It was noted that, in the absence of the installation, the viability of the project and visibility of the site’s future would have been jeopardised.

Mr Scoffin explained that the site currently provided employment for 125 individuals. The proposal had been selected on the basis of existing infrastructure, energy efficiency, and minimised noise and traffic impact.

The Agent assured the Committee that alternative locations for the silos had been assessed, and a site plan with markers of these potential locations was presented to the Committee. It was explained that the alternative locations were dismissed for a variety of reasons and each dismissed location was addressed in turn. The reasons outlined were respectively, prohibitive costs due to the absence of infrastructure; increased traffic past residential properties, particularly from forklift trucks; the obstruction of key road access and associated health and safety risks; issues related to the transfer of materials to the production building; limitations on future warehouse projects; the removal of parking spaces in already limited areas; and finally, permanently increased energy usage and noise levels due to material transfer distances.

With regard to resident concerns, Mr Scoffin confirmed that the submitted installation would not result in increased forklift traffic or general vehicle movement in proximity to neighbouring properties. It was explained that material offloads on the southeast corner would remain in their current position, with only a modest increase of one to two deliveries per week. These deliveries would continue to occur strictly between 7.00 a.m. and 7.00 p.m., Monday to Friday. Mr Scoffin clarified that forklift trucks were not involved in the movement of silo materials, rendering related concerns unfounded. The Agent confirmed that following a plant noise assessment, the Officer’s report concluded that the silos, together with the limited additional deliveries, would not give rise to unacceptable noise pollution.

Regarding surface water runoff, Mr Scoffin reported that the proposal would not increase the area which was currently positively drained to the dyke. It was noted that Amcor had recently carried out clearance of the dyke and expressed willingness to continue. However, it was noted that downstream clearance fell under the responsibility of others, as per riparian ownership regulations.

The Agent concluded by stating that the concerns of neighbours had been listened to carefully, and that meaningful steps had been taken to mitigate visual and auditory impact. A scheme of dense planting had been developed in collaboration with the Local Planning Authority, which was intended to serve as a visual and acoustic barrier along the site boundary. The proposal was described as striking a balance between operational necessity and community considerations. Confidence was expressed that the chosen plan minimised disruption, respected neighbour concerns, and supported the sustainable future of the site as a significant local employer.

The Chairman thanked Mr Scoffin for his comments and invited the second registered speaker, Mrs Karen Dowle, as Objector, to address the Committee.

Mrs Dowle began by highlighting that at the conclusion of the 25 June 2025 Planning Committee meeting, it had been stated that the planning application under consideration must be acceptable to both parties. It was expressed that disappointment had been felt upon review of the documentation available on the public portal, as no apparent changes had been identified. It was claimed that due diligence had not been demonstrated by Amcor in their submission and it had been hoped that a meeting would be arranged to allow concerns to be discussed.

Mrs Dowle explained that the rear building of RPC had been constructed in the year 2000, specifically for use as a warehouse and had not been intended to accommodate heavy machinery. At that time, RPC had also diverted the nearby dyke via a culvert, which had previously reached the corner of a neighbouring property, past the south side of the building, under the bank, flowing through to a nearby park.

 

Significant concerns had been raised regarding the proposal to site silos on the south side of the building. It was explained that the wall foundations extended further than anticipated, necessitating that the silos be positioned at a greater distance from the structure. This adjustment would have required the road to be widened and the bank to be pushed further back, thereby increasing the risk of damage to surrounding trees and raising the possibility of impact to the culvert system, which had been questioned in terms of its present condition.

 

Images of the dyke were presented to the Committee, reportedly showing that clearance had not been undertaken since 2022, when an overflow event had resulted in flooding at the speaker’s property. A major cleaning effort had been carried out by RPC at that time; however, no subsequent maintenance had been observed before or after. Additional images had illustrated the dyke under dry conditions, revealing the culvert’s grill, followed by images taken after rainfall, prompting queries regarding the culvert’s functionality. It was noted that surface water from the factory’s rear section was directed into gullies leading to recurring flooding in the area, which Mrs Dowle stated needed to be addressed by Amcor.

 

It was maintained that only the west or north side of the site would be acceptable for future silo installations due to the impact of existing silos and questions were asked regarding Amcor’s dismissal of alternative silo sites. With regard to moving the road further into the industrial estate, it was asserted that this would be dangerous for local residents.

The Committee were given documentation from 2004, supplied by Mrs Dowle, showing that the original silo application had been overturned by the Council, resulting in the silos being placed on the south side, with further installations had occurring in 2018. Reference was made to a 2003 landscaping plan involving trees, shrubs, and bushes that had reportedly never been planted. A request was therefore made for a new and varied selection of greenery to be introduced to reduce visual impact and noise levels from the existing silos.

 

Aside from the initial silos installed in 2004, it was claimed that the facility had previously operated as a quiet warehouse. However, it was stated that disturbances had increased in recent years, with notable thudding and vibrations arising from machinery. Mrs Dowle referenced disturbances to neighbouring properties due to vibration, and it was suggested that damage to residential properties may have already occurred. The speech concluded with Mrs Dowle asking Amcor to demonstrate integrity and act responsibly in relation to its neighbours.

The Chairman thanked Mrs Dowle for her comments and invited the third registered speaker, Cllr Bunney, as Ward Member, to address the Committee.

Cllr Bunney introduced himself as a Ward Member who served on West Lindsey District Council, Market Rasen Town Council, and Lincolnshire County Council. The Ward Member began by expressing concern regarding the absence of correspondence or communication between residents and the factory. It was suggested that decisions appeared to have been influenced predominantly by cost considerations rather than by a commitment to compromise or community agreement.

 

Cllr Bunney stated that the drainage system continued to pose significant problems, particularly for adjacent recreational areas. It was recommended that formal arrangements be implemented to ensure the ongoing maintenance of the dyke, culvert and drainage system.

 

The Ward Member reiterated concerns regarding noise, vibration, the visual impact from the site. It was emphasised that any additional silos should be located to minimise disruption to those living nearby. Matters relating to landscaping were also addressed, and it was observed that previous planting, including silver birch trees had not provided an effective year-round screen.

 

Reference was made to earlier remarks regarding sustainability and the need for rigorous assessment of the proposal. While it had been acknowledged that Market Rasen constituted an industrial area in part, attention was drawn to the responsibility of planners and developers to accommodate the needs of the residential population. A request was made by Cllr Bunney for the Committee to bear in mind the presence of affected residents throughout all stages of the planning process and to prioritise proper communication and consultation going forward.

 

The Chairman thanked Cllr Bunney for his comments and invited a response from the Officer.

 

The Officer clarified that responsibility for facilitating discussions between Amcor and residents would be a matter for those two parties directly.

 

Regarding drainage, the Officer stated that the proposed development would not increase surface water runoff, and a storm drain system was confirmed to be in place, directing water to the dyke. It was confirmed that the Applicant had acknowledged partial responsibility for the maintenance of the dyke, and within their application, had indicated that clearance works had been undertaken in 2022 and that ongoing monitoring was being conducted.

 

In relation to landscaping and trees, it had been noted that no protected trees existed on the site. Discussions with the Tree and Landscape Officer had taken place, and it had been agreed that the focus of mitigation should be on providing screening below the tree canopies, and appropriate tree species and heights had been confirmed.

 

Concerning noise, the Officer highlighted that reports had been conducted and had demonstrated that the anticipated impact from both the proposed works and the operation of the silos would be minimal.

 

The Chairman explained that at the previous meeting on 25 June 2025, a request had been made for the Applicant to investigate alternate silo locations on the site. It had been confirmed that information relating to this request had been submitted, including a location plan outlining possible alternatives. It was added that justifications had been provided to explain the preference for the proposed location, although cost had not been cited, as this was not a planning consideration.

 

In response to comments regarding historic planning decisions on the site from a Member of the Committee, the Officer clarified that the role of the Committee was to determine the application before them, specifically in terms of whether the chosen location would cause significant harm. Responding to a question about conditioning the maintenance of the dyke, the Officer advised that such a condition would not meet the six statutory tests required for planning conditions and would be deemed unreasonable. Officers noted that enforcement procedures already allowed site access for investigations at any time should issues arise, rendering an annual inspection unnecessary.

 

A Member of the Committee reiterated the Officer’s comments, noting the difficulties with potentially enforcing the maintenance of dyke. On the basis of what had been presented by all parties, the Committee Member did not believe there was a sufficient argument to refuse planning permission. Therefore, a proposal was made to accept the Officer’s recommendation as outlined in the report. Other Committee Members concurred, adding that consideration should be given to the financial implications of such a refusal, with recognition that offering false hope to residents in the long-term would not be appropriate.

 

Before closing the discussion, it had been emphasised that although a formal condition could not be imposed regarding regular maintenance of the dyke, the Applicant should be made aware that the matter had been raised and discussed by the Committee. It was agreed that the Officer would add an advisory note in relation to monitoring and maintaining the dyke to the east of the site.

 

Having been proposed and seconded, upon taking the vote it was agreed that planning permission be GRANTED subject to the following conditions:

 

Recommended Conditions:

 

Conditions stating the time by which the development must be commenced:

 

1. The development hereby permitted must be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission.

 

Reason: To conform with Section 91 (1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended).

 

Conditions which apply or require matters to be agreed before the development commenced:

NONE

 

Conditions which apply or are to be observed during the course of the development:

 

2. With the exception of the detailed matters referred to by the conditions of this consent, the development hereby approved must be carried out in accordance with the following drawings:

·       RD:5785/01 dated 18th December 2024 – Site Plans (Proposed Only)

·       RD:5785/02 dated 4th January 2018 – Elevation Plans (Proposed Only)

·       RD:5785/04 Rev B dated 14th July 2025 – Site Plan

·       RD:5785/05 dated 18th December 2024 – Road Widening Plans

The works must be carried out in accordance with the details shown on the approved plans and in any other approved documents forming part of the application.

 

Reason: To ensure the development proceeds in accordance with the approved plans and to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and Local Policy S1, S31, S47, S49 and S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023-2043.

 

3. The proposed development must be completed in strict accordance with the landscaping details identified on site plan RD:5785/04 Rev B dated 14th July 2025.

 

Reason: To ensure that appropriate landscaping is introduced and would provide effective additional soft landscape screening to the nearby residents to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policies S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

Conditions which apply or relate to matters which are to be observed following completion of the development:

 

4. No deliveries to the silos hereby approved must take place between the hours of 19.00-8.00 on a Monday to Friday or on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank Holiday.

 

Reason: To preserve residential amenity to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policy S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023-2043.

 

5. All planting comprised in the approved details of landscaping (see condition 3 of this permission) must be carried out in the first planting and seeding season following the completion of the development, whichever is the sooner; and any trees or plants which within a period of 5 years from the completion of the development die, are removed, or become seriously damaged or diseased must be replaced in the next planting season with others of similar size and species, unless the Local Planning Authority gives written consent to any variation. The landscaping should be retained thereafter.

 

Reason: To ensure that additional trees are provided within the site to mitigate for the trees which are to be removed to accord with the National Planning Policy Framework and local policies S53 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan 2023.

 

Advisory Note:

 

Drainage and Flood Risk

 

It is advised that the occupying business monitor and maintain the dyke adjacent to the east of the site (which is within their responsibility) to a standard that allows water to properly flow and liaise with neighbouring residents whenever relevant.