Agenda Item 5.1
Regulatory and Other Committee
Open Report on behalf of Andy Gutherson Executive Director for Place
Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee
Date: 3 February 2020
Subject: County Matter Application - 18/0714/CCC
Summary: Planning permission is sought by Lincoln Proteins Ltd (Agent: JHWalter LLP) for the erection of an animal by-products processing facility to include two processing buildings for Category 1 (and Category 2) and Category 3 material, associated ducting, ancillary boiler houses, covered filtration beds with flues, 35 metre high composite stack, water treatment plant, internal roadways, employee welfare buildings, stores, weighbridge, weighbridge kiosk, trailer park, visitor and staff car park, attenuation lagoons, clean water pond, landscaping, new vehicular access to Folly Lane, upgraded second access, 2.4 metre paladin fencing, change of use and alterations to the two existing dwellings to form ancillary offices and demolition of all other existing buildings at Villa Farm, Folly Lane, Norton Disney.
Recommendation: Following consideration of the relevant development plan policies and the comments received through consultation and publicity it is recommended that planning permission be refused.
The Application
1. Planning permission is sought for the erection of an animal by-products processing facility to include two processing buildings for Category 1 (and Category 2) and Category 3 material, associated ducting, ancillary boiler houses, covered filtration beds with flues, 35 metre high composite stack, water treatment plant, internal roadways, employee welfare buildings, stores, weighbridge, weighbridge kiosk, trailer park, visitor and staff car park, attenuation lagoons, clean water pond, landscaping, new vehicular access to Folly Lane, upgraded second access, 2.4 metre paladin fencing, change of use and alterations to the two existing dwellings to form ancillary offices and demolition of all other existing buildings at Villa Farm, Folly Lane, Norton Disney.
Page 13 Description of Rendering
2. The processing of animal by-products is known as rendering. Within the United Kingdom (and the European Union) animal by-products cannot be sent to landfill and so animal material is rendered. Rendering uses heat and pressure to sterilise and stabilise the animal material. Sterilisation eliminates the risk of disease and stabilisation prevents further decomposition and enables the material to be stored and reprocessed for other uses.
3. The rendering process is formed of a number of stages. Firstly, the raw material is initially screw augured to crushes to reduce the size of the material. The material is then transferred to the cookers in the relevant buildings. The temperature of the material within the cooker is increased by the use of indirect steam. Moisture is then driven off as vapour which is collected and directed to thermal oxidisers. The remaining material is discharged from the cooker on a continuous basis. This remaining material is known as “greaves” and is a mixture of fat and protein. The greaves are directed to high pressure extruder presses which separate the tallow (oil) from the protein (meat and bone meal). The tallow is then screened and centrifuged to remove solids prior to its storage and dispatch. The meat and bone meal is processed to a powder consistency and then cooled for storage and dispatch.
4. The raw material animal by-products used in the rendering process are classified into three distinct categories, based on the risks they pose, as follows:
Category 1 - these are classed as the highest risk animal by-products and include carcasses and all body parts of animal suspected of being infected with transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE); carcasses of wild animals suspected of being infected with a disease that humans or animal could contract; carcasses of animals used in experiments; carcasses and body parts from zoo and circus animal or pets; parts of animals that are contaminated due to illegal treatments; international catering waste; and specified risk material.
Category 2 - these are classed as high risk animal by-products and include animals rejected from abattoirs due to having infectious diseases; carcasses containing residues from authorised treatments; unhatched poultry that has died in its shell; carcasses of animals killed for disease control purposes; carcasses of dead livestock; manure; and digestive tract content.
Category 3 - these are classed as low risk animal by-products and include carcasses or body parts passed fit for human consumption at a slaughterhouse; products or food of animal origin originally meant for human consumption but withdrawn for commercial reasons (not because it is unfit to eat); domestic catering waste; shells from shellfish with soft tissue; eggs, egg by-products, hatchery by-products, eggshells; aquatic animals, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates; hides and skins from slaughterhouses; animal
Page 14 hides, skins, hooves, feathers, wool, horns and hair that had no signs of infectious disease at death; and processed animal proteins.
Each category of raw material can produce different end product materials, depending on the original risk category, as set out in the diagram below:
Source: EFPRA This proposed facility proposes to process Category 1, 2 and 3 material, with Category 1 and 2 material being processed in the same building.
Site Location plan
Page 15
Proposed Site Layout plan
Category 1 (and Category 2) Processing Building
5. This application proposes to process Category 1 and Category 2 material in the same building, using the same facilities. As such, all of the material would be treated as Category 1 material, that of the highest risk. On the drawings submitted with this application, this building is referred to as a Category 1 building. This building is proposed to be 100 metres long by 30 metres wide. The majority of the building is proposed to have a ridge height of 9.6 metres and a height of the eaves of 7 metres, however, the first 25 metres of the northern end of the building are proposed to have a ridge height of 13.3 metres and an eaves height of 12 metres, although the additional height of this part of the building is limited to half of its width (15 metres). This building is proposed to be raised 0.2 metres above ground level (the dimensions stated above are from this raised level). This building is proposed to have plastic-coated profiled steel sheeting in RAL6009 Fir Green cladding.
6. It is proposed that delivery vehicles would reverse into the reception area of this building. The outer door would be interlocked with the raw material hopper lid so that the hopper lid would only open once the outer door is closed, thus creating an airlock. The area would be maintained under negative pressure with the “room” air being extracted to a bio-filter system. The vehicle would discharge the load into the hopper and the interior of the vehicle would then be washed and disinfected. This wash water would drain into the hopper. The exterior of the vehicle would then be washed and this
Page 16 wash water would be discharged to the water treatment plant. Once unloaded and washed, the vehicle would remain in the tipping hall for the period of one air change whilst air is extracted. The vehicle would exit the building in a forward gear, once the hopper lid has been closed. When the airlocks are not in use, all doors and hopper lids would remain closed.
The processing building is proposed to contain two 100 tonne capacity hoppers.
The raw material then goes through the process described above.
Category 1 – General Arrangement plan
Category 3 Processing Building
7. The Category 3 processing building would only accept Category 3 raw material. The Category 3 building is also proposed to be 100 metres long by 30 metres wide. The northern-most part of this building is proposed to have a ridge height of 14.6 metres and an eaves height of 12.1 metres, running for 25 metres across the whole width of the building. The remaining 75 metres of the building is proposed to have a ridge height of 9.6 metres and a height to the eaves of 7 metres. This building is proposed to be raised 0.2 metres above ground level (the dimensions stated above are from this raised level). This building is proposed to have plastic-coated profiled steel sheeting in RAL6009 Fir Green cladding.
The process described above in relation to the Category 1 building would also take place within the Category 3 building.
Page 17 Category 3 – General Arrangement plan
Boiler Houses
8. Two boiler houses are proposed to be located between the Category 1 and Category 3 buildings. One is proposed to be 15 metres long by 9 metres wide with a ridge height of 7.1 metres and a height to the eaves of 6.5 metres. The other boiler house is proposed to be 15 metres long by 7 metres wide with a ridge height of 7.1 metres and an eaves height of 6.5 metres.
Composite Stack
9. Between the two proposed boiler houses, a composite stack is proposed which would encompass the processing building’s and boiler’s flues. This is proposed to have a diameter of 3.3 metres and a height of 35 metres.
Covered Filtration Beds
10. Two covered filtration beds are proposed, one associated with each of the processing buildings. The Category 1 filtration bed is proposed to be located to the north east of the proposed Category 1 building. It is proposed to be 20 metres long by 15 metres wide. It is proposed to have a domed canopy roof to a maximum height of 8 metres and an eaves height of 4 metres. A 15 metre high flue is proposed to be located adjacent to the east elevation of this filtration bed. This is proposed to have a diameter of 1 metre. The walls are proposed to be unfinished smooth grey masonry blockwork and the roof is proposed to be painted in RAL6009 Fir Green.
Page 18 This filtration bed is proposed to be connected to the Category 1 building by external inlet pipes.
11. The Category 3 filtration bed is proposed to be located to the north west of the proposed Category 3 building. It is proposed to be 40 metres long by 15 metres wide. It is also proposed to have a domed canopy roof to a maximum height of 8 metres and a height to the eaves of 4 metres. A 15 metre high flue is proposed to be located adjacent to the west elevation of this filtration bed and is proposed to have a diameter of 1 metre. The walls are proposed to be unfinished smooth grey masonry blockwork and the roof is proposed to be painted in RAL6009 Fir Green. This filtration bed is proposed to be connected to the Category 3 building by external inlet pipes.
Water Treatment Plant
12. The water treatment plant is proposed to be formed from nine constituent parts (the original application proposed eight parts but a filtration bed was added to the scheme in the October 2019 submission) plus a control room and laboratory, as follows:
• a balance tank with a height of 7.2 metres and a diameter of 6 metres; • a primary Dissolved Air Flotation (DAF) plant proposed to be 5 metres long by 2 metres wide and a height of 2 metres; • an aeration tank (for the oxidisation of iron and hydrogen sulphide), proposed to be 11.3 metres high and have a diameter of 15 metres; • a sludge tank with a height of 8 metres and a diameter of 3 metres; • a press, proposed to be 12.2 metres long by 2.8 metres wide and a height of 2 metres; • a secondary DAF plant proposed to be 2 metres long by 2 metres wide and a height of 1 metre; • a recycled water tank with a height of 7.2 metres and a diameter of 6 metres; • a clean water tank with a height of 7.2 metres and a diameter if 6 metres; and • a filtration bed, proposed to be 6 metres long by 6 metres wide and 2 metres high.
The control room and laboratory is proposed to be 15 metres long by 6 metres wide and have a flat roof to a height of 2.75 metres.
Employee Welfare Buildings
13. Two employee welfare buildings are proposed (marked on the submitted drawings as Shower Blocks), one in relation to each of the processing buildings. Both buildings are proposed to the same specification. They are proposed to be 18.95 metres long by 6.6 metres wide with a flat roof to a height of 2.75 metres. Both buildings are proposed to have a small entrance area to their north west corner, effectively creating an indent into the external fabric of the buildings. The buildings are proposed to contain
Page 19 bathroom, shower and canteen facilities. Attached to the shower area of the buildings are proposed laundry chutes.
Stores
14. An ancillary store building is proposed to be located to the west of the proposed Category 3 building. This is proposed to be 10 metres long by 6 metres wide and have a height to the ridge of 5.2 metres and an eaves height of 3.6 metres. This building is proposed to be raised 0.2 metres above ground level (the dimensions stated above are from this raised level).
Weighbridge and Weighbridge Office
15. At the entrance and exit to the main processing area of the site a weighbridge and weighbridge office are proposed. The weighbridge office is proposed to be 6 metres long by 3 metres wide and have a flat roof with a height of 2.75 metres. It is proposed to have vertical corrugated sheet metal cladding, coloured RAL6009 Fir Green.
Lorry Park Office
16. At the entrance to the clean lorry park, a lorry park office building is proposed. This would be 5 metres long by 3 metres wide and have a flat roof with a height of 2.75 metres. It is proposed to have vertical corrugated sheet metal cladding, coloured RAL6009 Fir Green.
Parking Areas
17. Two areas are proposed for parking within the site. At the northern part of the site, adjacent to the A46 dual carriageway, a clean lorry park is proposed to be constructed. This would provide parking facilities for approximately 40 lorries. This parking area is proposed to be bounded along its northern and western edges by a 2 metre high closed boarded timber fence.
18. A staff and visitor car parking area is proposed adjacent to the proposed offices. This proposes to have parking facilities for 44 staff cars and five visitor cars. This car park is proposed to be accessed via an existing, but upgraded, vehicular access off Folly Lane.
Attenuation Lagoons and Clean Water Pond
19. Two surface water attenuation lagoons are proposed within the site. One is proposed to be located adjacent to the clean lorry park, along its western boundary. This is proposed to have a clay base and sides with a hydrobrake and interceptor to control discharge into the local watercourse.
20. A second surface water attenuation lagoon is proposed to the east of the main processing area of the site. This is proposed to have a storage capacity of 3,200 cubic metres. This is proposed to store rainwater
Page 20 collected from the rooftops of the buildings within the main processing area, which does not need to be processed through the water treatment plant. It is proposed to be fed via an inlet pipe from the roofed areas. This lagoon is proposed to have a clay base and sides and a hydrobrake to control discharge into the local watercourse.
21. In addition to this, a clean water holding pond is proposed to be constructed in the southern area of the site. This is proposed to have a storage capacity of 6,500 cubic metres. It is proposed to have a clay base and sides.
22. An underground concrete stormwater storage chamber is also proposed. This is proposed to be located to the south of the water treatment plant and would hold surface water run-off from the processing area prior to treatment and re-use.
Vehicular Accesses
23. There are proposed to be two vehicular accesses to this site. The northern access point is proposed to be for lorries and involves the creation of a new access onto Folly Lane.
24. The other access point proposes to utilise an existing access point onto Folly Lane, which is proposed to be upgraded. This access is proposed to be used for cars of staff and visitors to the site. Vehicles using this access would not enter the main processing area of the site.
25. An existing field access which runs east to west across the central area of the site, sharing the existing Folly Lane access point, is proposed to be retained.
Offices
26. At present on the site are a pair of semi-detached dwellings. It is proposed to make alterations to these dwellings, including internal alterations to both, to change their use to offices associated with the proposed processing plant. The external alterations to the properties are proposed to consist of the removal of the porch and garden room to one dwelling, the removal of chimney stacks and replacement windows and doors. The majority of the proposed office accommodation is proposed to be located on the ground floor, with the first floor proposed to be used for storage and archives.
Demolition
27. The site currently the aforementioned dwellings, together with a range of other buildings associated with agricultural use, including wooden and metal-framed structures. All of these buildings, with the exception of the semi-detached dwellings, are proposed to be demolished.
Page 21 Filling Station
28. Along the access to the main processing area of the site, just to the north of the proposed weighbridge and office, a filling station is proposed.
Fencing
29. It is proposed to erect a 2.4 metre high paladin fence around the perimeter of the site. This is proposed to be coloured RAL6009 Fir Green.
Landscaping
30. A scheme of landscaping has been submitted showing where new planting is proposed to take place.
Proposed Site Cross Section plan
Environmental Statement
31. The application has been supported by an Environmental Statement (ES) and in accordance with Regulation 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2017 (EIA Regulations) further information was submitted on 21 October 2019 to supplement that submitted with the original ES. The original ES contains the following information (although some of this information has been subject to change since the original submission, the revised information is set out in relation to the Regulation 25 submission later in this report):
Chapter 1: Introduction sets out the intention to process what is defined as Category 1, Category 2 and Category 3 animal by-products at the site in two processing buildings. It states that the overall principle of the proposal is to use best available techniques, meaning the most effective and advanced stage in the development of activities and their methods of operation.
It sets out the context for dealing with the application as a County Matter and the requirement for, and aims of, an Environmental Impact Assessment. It also sets out the qualifications of those who contributed to the ES.
Page 22 Chapter 2: Site Description states that this is a farm site which is currently unoccupied. The semi-detached farm bungalows are dwellinghouses and the surrounding brick and timber buildings within the yard were last used for agriculture. Around the yard there are areas of rough pasture, small areas of woodland, hedges and arable fields. A gas transmission main runs through the site from southwest to northeast and a high voltage overhead powerline serves the farm buildings from the south. The site is 11.88 hectares in size and levels vary from a low point in the northern fields of 34.5m AOD rising to a road plateau area around the farm and adjacent fields at approximately 36m AOD. The site is bounded to the north by the A46 dual carriageway, to the east by Folly Lane and arable fields beyond, to the south by open fields and to the west by open fields with ground levels falling away from the site.
Chapter 3: Proposed Operational Development sets out the constituent elements of the proposed operational development (as described in more detail above).
Chapter 4: Proposed Process describes the process of rendering (as described above). It states that it is intended that 80% of the by-product processed by the plant would be mammalian and 20% avian (with avian by- products including egg shells but no unattached feathers or blood). Approximately 1,800 tonnes of Category 3 materials is proposed to be processed per week and 1,800 tonnes of Category 1 and 2 material.
The animal by-products would arrive on site in specialist Heavy Commercial Vehicle (HCV) trailers or containers, principally owned and operated by the developer. The existing fleet includes trailers which have been designed and built to be fully enclosed for carrying fallen stock and associated animal by-products with the rear doors tightly sealed around a rubber insert sealing strip between the door and the body of the trailer to ensure there is no leakage. It is estimated that the would be a maximum of 150 HCV trips (75 in and 75 out) over each 24 hour period, including day and night time trips. Once logged and accepted onto the site, the HCV would be directed to one of the processing buildings.
The resultant tallow produced from the rendering process would be delivered to customers in the applicant’s own tankers. The resultant meal would be used for power station fuel (for Category 1 and 2) and fertiliser production and animal feed (for Category 3).
It is proposed to operate the plant for 5.5 days per week, 24 hours per day.
150 full time equivalent employees are proposed across the site, including apprentices.
Chapter 5: Need and Review of Alternatives states that the evidence of need and review of alternatives is set within the context of environment assessment. The need to relocate is stated to be a requirement as the applicant does not hold the freehold at the current site at Jerusalem Farm,
Page 23 Skellingthorpe and given the economic costs of introducing the latest Best Available Technology, without closing it down for a lengthy and unviable period of time, the only solution is relocation.
There are alternatives to animal by-product processing, for example, incineration, however, this is expensive and uses a large amount of fossil fuels with a significant, undesirable carbon footprint. In contrast, animal by- product processing recycles by-product and manufactures a value added product much in demand, with no waste and with significant sustainability benefits.
Another alternative would be to separate the Category 1 (and 2) and Category 3 lines onto two separate sites. This is possible, however, the operations would lose the economies derived from shared infrastructure such as offices, energy supply which would have a major impact on the viability of the business, would increase land usage and is not considered to be a reasonable alternative.
Seven alternatives sites have been considered, based on specified criteria, including:
• a minimum site area of 5.5 hectares; • the land being available; • access directly or within 200 metres of a classified road; • no existing dwellings on the HCV route between the site and the classified road; • minimise the number of dwellings in close proximity to the site; and • 80% of employees are within 30km of the site.
The alternative sites were at land off Jessop Way, Newark; strategic land allocation in Newark South; Network 46, Witham St Hughs; Teal Park, North Hykeham; Sleaford Enterprise Park; Somerby Park, Gainsborough; and allocated site at Hemswell Cliff. Overall, it was concluded that all of the alternative sites could be developed for the proposed use but that this would be prevented due to major environmental effects which are limited to odour (subject to mitigation measures in relation to ecology and heritage as relevant).
Chapter 6: Policy provides the national and local planning policy context for the proposed development and cites the policies considered to be of relevance.
Chapter 7: Transport refers to the Transport Assessment appendix. The assessment has calculated the projected trip generation for the proposed development, with specific consideration to relevant consented developments within the local area, for example, Network 46 and any committed changes to the surrounding highway network. The TRICS database did not provide a category which matches the operations of the site and therefore trip generation was based on information provided by the applicant, comprising of a maximum of 75 arrivals and 75 departures for
Page 24 operational HCV movements over each 24 hour period and 40 employee car arrivals and departures. The staff arrivals and departures relate to shift patterns and would not all occur during the typical morning and evening network peak hours. The assessment also considered the likely traffic impact of the proposed development on the operation of the local and strategic highway networks, involving assessing traffic generation of the proposal against the typical threshold for assessment (30 two-way traffic flows).
The assessment has specifically taken into account the cumulative impact of the proposed development and other committed schemes in the locality, specifically Network 46 and Teal Park.
It is considered that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the operation of the local highway network or the Strategic Road Network. The proposal would not have a severe impact.
The receptors taken into consideration were Folly Lane, the A46 and the wider network. There was a major potential for impact on Folly Lane but the proposed mitigation, that is, the widening of the land between the main site access and the A46, means that the mitigated impact would be minor. The impact on the A46 would be minor given the relatively insignificant trip rates as a percentage of existing traffic flows and that the junction with Folly Lane was designed to be safe for HCV turning, as proposed. The minor impact on the wider network assumes controls in the form of routeing of movements to and from the site via the A46 and not through Norton Disney village.
Chapter 8: Air states that the emissions to atmosphere arise primarily from the combustion of fuels within the site boilers and the oxidiser and the treatment of odorous air from the by-product processing (the oxidisers and bio-filters). An additional potential impact arises from “fugitive” emissions, particularly those associated with the transport of by-product to the plant.
The UK Air Quality Strategy (2007) defines the UK’s air quality standards and objectives for major pollutants and the plant is assessed against these, assuming that both lines are at maximum operating conditions and load. The combustion processes are all fired using natural gas which mean that the combustion products emitted are oxides of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, whilst the thermal oxidisers may emit small quantities of some residual volatile organic compounds and carbon monoxide, the latter compounds are not considered in the assessment.
There are no designated habitat sites near the application site but there are twelve non-statutory designated sites (Local Wildlife Sites and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance) within 2km of the site centre. Of these, Hawdin’s Wood and Norton Big Wood are also listed as Ancient Woodland and Ancient Replanted Woodland.
Dispersion modelling has been undertaken and assessed the impact of atmospheric emissions from the proposed plant on the area surrounding the
Page 25 site. On the basis of preliminary stack height analysis, a stack height of 35 metres was preferred, although lower stack heights were investigated. The percentage change in the concentration of NO2 relative to the Air Quality Strategy would be less than 5% and would be considered to be negligible in planning terms at the point of maximum impact and should be lower at other locations.
The assessment was also undertaken using the Environment Agency H1 screening approach and found the short term process contribution of all pollutants would be less than 10% of the short-term environmental standard; and the long-term process contribution of all pollutants would be less than 1% of the long-term environmental standard, the long-term predicted environmental concentration is less than 70% of the long-term environmental standard. On this basis, the pollutant impact due to discharge via a 35 metre stack is considered to be acceptable in this location.
The impact was also assessed for specific receptor properties, that is, the nearest residential properties. At the closest property annual average NO2 impacts and annual average PM10 are considered to be negligible.
Chapter 9: Odour identifies matters which potentially contribute to offensive odours from such facilities, including, fugitive emissions from transportation as it enters the site; excessive build-up of raw materials or excessive residence time of raw materials at the site prior to processing; inadequate control of odours during receipt and processing; inadequate building containment; accidental loss of containment from failed plant and equipment; and spillage and leakages.
Odorous compounds are identified as a result of the matters contributing to odour.
The levels of odour detection are set out, together with the categories of the offensiveness of odours.
The Odour Assessment acknowledges that it would be unusual if odour concentration remained unchanged for an hour and, in reality, due to air turbulence and changes in wind direction, short term fluctuations in concentrations are observed, therefore, although average exposure levels may be below the detection threshold, or a particular guideline, a population may be exposed to short term concentrations higher than the hourly average. A fluctuating odour is often more noticeable than a steady background odour at a low concentration.
Odour is dependent on the performance of the control systems and a variety of such systems are set out. The highest odour concentrations are predicted at Hill Holt Wood (0.64 OUE/m3 as a 98th percentile) which is considered to be “slight”, as is that for South Potter Hill Farm and the impact at the remaining receptors is considered to be “negligible”.
Page 26 An Odour Management Plan is proposed to be prepared and submitted. Chapter 10: Heritage states that the site lies in close proximity to a number of prehistoric and Roman sites, most notably the buried remains of a Roman villa approximately 150 metres to the east of the northern part of the site. The villa and surrounding land has been designated as a Scheduled Monument. The villa was partially excavated in 1933.
Other Historic Environment Record entries include Roman remains and early pre-historic finds form the area around the Roman villa site and evidence of probable Roman and later features to the north of the site adjacent to the A46, including an Anglo-Saxon burial mound on Potters Hill. A second area of Iron Age or Romano-British archaeological assets has been identified primarily from aerial photographs in close proximity to the south of the site, in the fields north of Brills Farm.
Previous fieldwork undertaken was also reviewed, a map regression exercise undertaken and a Gradiometry survey. The main features identified appear to indicate a hitherto unrecorded extension of the Brills Farm earthworks into the southern portion of the site but the rest of the site, whilst having some minor features, showed less indication for the presence of archaeological remains. It is acknowledged that gradiometer surveys do not give detailed qualitative information and that intrusive investigation is required. A trenching plan for an archaeological evaluation was proposed to identify the detailed nature of features recorded by the survey; to test a number of “blank areas” to clarify if this is a genuine absence of archaeological remains or the result of differing ground conditions; and to investigate the line of a possible Roman road.
A geophysical survey of the field contained the Scheduled Roman villa has also been undertaken but the results require examination.
On the basis of the information considered, it is concluded that there would be no impact considered to be “substantial harm” to designated or undesignated heritage assets or their settings. The impact on the designated site is well below “substantial” and the impact on the significance of the non-designated assets is low. It is not expected that the additional work to be undertaken would raise the level of the assessed impact upon the archaeology, but it is hoped the results will inform mitigation of the identified impact, reducing it yet further.
Chapter 11: Ecology states that a total of twelve non-statutory designated sites (Local Wildlife Sites and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance) are located within 2km of the site centre and Hawdin’s Wood and Norton Big Wood are listed as Ancient Woodland and Ancient Replanted Woodland.
An Extended Phase I Habitat Survey and a Bat Roost Potential Survey of all buildings and trees at the site were completed. Phases II Surveys were subsequently completed in relation to wintering birds and breeding birds and nocturnal bat surveys are proposed to be undertaken. A Tree and Hedgerow Survey was also completed.
Page 27 The majority of the buildings at the site were considered to be unsuitable to support roosting bats, however, one of the buildings had evidence of hibernating Brown Long-Eared bats. Several trees at the site were assessed as having low bat roost potential. Whilst the arable fields which make up the majority of the site provide sub-optimal foraging habitat for widespread bat species such as Common Pipistrelle and Soprano Pipistrelle, the tress and hedgerows create linear features across the site and connecting areas of woodland on-site and within the surrounding area are suitable for commuting and foraging bats, including those which are light averse as the site is unlit.
The wintering and breeding bird species recorded were found to be low in numbers and were considered to be commonly occurring locally, and widespread within the county.
Great Crested Newts and reptiles are considered to be likely to be absent from the site. Brown hare have been recorded and there is suitable habitat for hedgehog.
Mitigation has been proposed to minimise impacts and level of disturbance, such that there are not considered to be any significant residual impacts resulting from the proposals. Mitigation and habitat enhancement includes bat and bird boxes, landscape planting to encourage invertebrates and increase foraging, sheltering and nesting opportunities for bird species. Lighting is proposed to be designed to minimise any impact on wildlife habitats by limiting light spillage and ensuring lighting is directional. No lighting will be onto any wildlife habitats at the site. Overall connectivity for wildlife within and to off-site habitats will be maintained and where possible, enhanced. It will be essential to ensure retained and new habitats are appropriately managed and maintained. As such, there will be no significant adverse impacts on any receptors as a result of the proposals.
Chapter 12: Landscape and Visual Impact states that the proposal site is not within any national or local statutory landscape, heritage or nature designations. The landscape and visual impact assessment is based on an assessment of effects upon completion, having consideration of a matured landscape strategy and mitigation planting; and the visual assessment is carried out based on a “worst case scenario” considering the views with no foliage on the vegetation.
Natural England identifies the site and surrounding area within National Character Area 48 “Trent and Belvoir Vales”. At a regional level, the site is within “4a Unwooded Vales” which forms part of the wider area “Group 4 Lowland Vales” and wraps around the adjoining “Wooded Vales” character area. The North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment defines the character area as “Terrace Sandlands Sub-Area”.
Existing sensitive receptors are identified as the residents of nearby properties including South Potter Hill Farm, Hill Holt Farm and Brills Farm;
Page 28 visitors to Hill Holt Wood; and users of local footpaths, including FP14 and FP17.
The mitigation measures proposed aim to avoid, minimise or compensate the potential adverse landscape and visual effects and are to be incorporated into the layout, design and landscape strategy for the scheme. This includes:
• retention, where possible, of existing landscape features and citing of the built elements of the development allowing a permeable layout or concentrated block which sits within the proposed existing and enhanced landscape framework;
• layout, design and finished structure to adopt forms and use materials and styles which are consistent with the surrounding landscape character and vernacular architecture; and
• building finishes and colour palette chosen to allow development to fit into its surroundings and minimise visual impact.
The landscape guidance recognises the gently undulating and rural landscape. It is a working agricultural landscape alongside the River Trent which has meant that land use has diversified over the last 100 years, including the introduction of canals, power stations, gravel extraction and airfields, alongside larger scale arable crop production and increased pressure from residential expansion.
Due to the location of the site towards the top of a local ridgeline that slopes away from the site in most directions, clear views of the site are available from scattered locations within the surrounding landscape. Landscape features often partially or fully screen the site from view, although the tallest parts of the proposed development would occasionally be visible over or between these features. Looking out from this area, there are no important or recognised vistas or panoramic views to features in the landscape. There are some large scale industrial and commercial features such as power stations and the sugar beet factory at Newark. The woodland to the north, east and west provides potential for mitigating visual impact.
During construction, it is assessed that there would be a negligible magnitude of effect upon the wider national and regional landscape character areas due to the expanse of these areas and the proportion of the site within them. Due to the location on a prominent ridgeline, this allows for an increased intervisibility across the local landscape areas which can give the perception that a wider character area is affected. During construction there would be a minor adverse significance of effect on the Terrace Sandlands character area and a minor / moderate significance of effect upon the East Nottinghamshire Sandlands character area.
During operation, there would be a low / negligible magnitude of effect on the southern most parts of the Unwooded Vales and Wooded Vales due to
Page 29 the site’s elevated location. To the north, the topography slopes away from the ridgeline decreasing the potential of the proposals to affect this area, leading to a no more than minor significance of effect on these landscapes.
There would be a moderate / major significance of effect, of a temporary nature, during construction on the site itself. During operation, the site itself would experience the highest adverse effect, resulting in a major adverse significance of effect very locally. The landscape mitigation would reduce these impacts as the proposed planting matures, however, the chimney stack and other taller elements of the development would remain a detractor in the landscape.
Overall, the proposed development would have a moderate / minor adverse impact on landscape character.
The greatest visual impact on receptors would be residents in proximity to the site on Newark Road, users of footpath FP17 and road users on Newark Road and parts of Folly Lane. Receptors in the wider study area would experience a reduced level of effect due to intervening landform combined with features including woodland blocks and roadside trees. On completion there would be adverse effects on focused groups of visual receptors. This is considered in the context of existing human influences within the study area including the A46 corridor, agricultural land uses, sites of gravel extraction and the Brills Farm wind turbine.
The most visible elements would be the upper part of the chimney stack and the emissions from it. This would stand out in views of nearby receptors and would be occasionally visible in longer distance views of receptors in the wider study area. It would be most visible against a clear sky, above the trees that form the skyline in the majority of views across the study area and would be seen in wide views, across the gently undulating, rolling landscape and in context with other scattered man-made features such as the wind turbine and A46 lighting columns. Overall the character of the views would not be altered.
On completion, and once the proposed planting within and around the site has matured (year 15), the majority of receptors would experience effects upon their views of low to negligible levels of significance and a small number in proximity to the site would experience effects of moderate levels of significance.
Chapter 13: Noise states that a noise methodology was agreed with North Kesteven District Council’s Environmental Health Officer, including that environmental noise survey must be completed over a period that included quieter periods such as over a weekend; that noise levels should be monitored at positions representative of South Potter Hill Farm, Hill Holt Farm and Brills Farm; and operational noise assessment should be conducted in accordance with BS4142:2014.
Page 30 The construction noise assessment showed that predicted noise levels from worst-case construction operations would be below threshold values at all the nearest noise sensitive receptors and will therefore have no impact on these nearest receptors.
The operational noise assessment showed that the predicted rating levels from the site are equal to or below the background sound levels at all the nearest noise-sensitive receptors except for Hill Holt Wood; and at Hill Holt Wood at night, the rating level is 3dB(A) above the background sound level. However, as the specific sound level and background sound level at Hill Holt Wood may be considered low, and as the specific sound level is more than 10dB(A) below the existing baseline ambient night-time sound level, it is not considered that mitigation is required.
The noise generated by the site would have a low impact during all time periods.
Chapter 14: Flood Risk and Drainage states that the site lies within Flood Zone 1. The site is at risk of pluvial flooding, groundwater risk would be negligible and given that there are no foul or surface water sewers within the nearby area, there is negligible risk from these. The risk of flooding from highways is very low.
There are minor watercourses that drain the site area and the site straddles the catchment boundary between the River Trent basin and River Witham basin.
The drainage strategy identified three zones with the site; the proposed trailer park (with hydrocarbon interceptor); the apron around the processing buildings with collections cells and transfer to a water treatment plant; and other areas, such as landscaping, roofs and hardstanding outside the apron and trailer park. Water is proposed to be reused in the processing facility. Attenuation and water storage on site is proposed with hydro brakes to limit runoff from within the site, in terms of rate and character to the existing greenfield rate, allowing for climate change and up to a 1 in 100 year rainfall event.
Finished floor levels are proposed at approximately 36.7 metres AOD and place buildings 500mm above existing local ground levels.
With this strategy in place, the environmental impact in terms of water, flood and drainage would be neutral.
Chapter 15: Conclusions of Overall Impact summarises all of the previous chapters and concludes that the impacts, with mitigation in place, range from neutral and negligible to moderate / minor adverse and not any significant residual impact.
Chapter 16: Appendices A number of technical appendices were included within the ES, as follows:
Page 31 • Transport Assessment; • Air Quality Assessment; • Odour Impact Assessment; • Archaeological Desk Based Assessment; • Geophysical Survey; • Ecology Technical Chapter; • Extended Phase I Habitat Survey and Bat Roost Potential March 18; • Wintering Birds Survey; • Updated Bat Roost Potential Survey; • Arboricultural Report; • Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment; • Noise Assessment; and • Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy.
Following a request under Regulation 25 of the EIA Regulations, further information was submitted on 21 October 2019. The further information seeks to address queries and objections which had been raised in relation to the originally submitted ES. This included the following:
EIA Regulation 25 Request Response by Applicant to LCC which sets out an overall summary of each of the specific areas where further information was sought (these are dealt with below in relation to each subject area to avoid repetition), together with addressing other matters raised.
Overarching Issues and Environmental Statement General Issues clarify that the maximum capacity of the proposed plant is 5,000 tonnes per week and that this is broken down between each of the two lines having a maximum capacity of 2,500 tonnes per week. It is stated that this is a maximum capacity but that in reality this would not be reached, however, the maximum capacity is the scenario upon which all specialist reports have been written and assessed.
In relation to the number of employees at the site, this is clarified as being a maximum of 130 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions with an additional 20 apprentices, giving an overall maximum of 150 FTE. It is stated that the 130 FTE figure is used in the Transport Assessment as the additional 20 apprentices would not have a significant impact on the capacity of the site and that the majority of these apprentices would be provided with free transport to and from the site in a minibus, resulting in four additional traffic movements per day.
It is clarified that the specification of the Category 3 processing building has been designed to “future-proof” the building but that this would not increase the capacity of the site or change the material considerations of noise, traffic and odour.
It is stated that the steam from the Thermal Recuperative Oxidisers would be carried between the processing buildings within an insulated pipe carried
Page 32 by a gantry at eaves level and revised drawings have been submitted to reflect this.
A commentary is provided setting out how the proposed development at Villa Farm, Norton Disney would operate in relation to the existing animal by-products rendering plant at Jerusalem Farm, Jerusalem Lane, Skellingthorpe. The applicant has a lease on the site at Skellingthorpe which runs to 2041 and this requires the applicant to ensure that the existing use is not abandoned during the period of the lease holding. It is proposed that the existing operation at Skellingthorpe would be moved to the site at Norton Disney in a phased manner, with the Category 3 processing operation being proposed to be moved to the Norton Disney site initially, and once that was operating successfully, the applicant would move the Category 1 operation. It is anticipated that from the grant of planning permission to the full transfer of the Category 3 line to the Norton Disney site would be likely to take between two and a half and three years. It is anticipated that from the grant of planning permission to the full transfer of operations from the Skellingthorpe site to the Norton Disney site would take approximately four to five years.
During the transfer of operations, the existing Category 3 line at Skellingthorpe is proposed to become the Category 1 line, as this was Best Available Technology (BAT) when it was designed in approximately 2014, and is a significant improvement on the existing Category 1 line at Skellingthorpe.
The existing facility at Skellingthorpe is proposed to be used as a contingency in the short term for any issues at the Norton Disney site. Once the Norton Disney facility was fully operational, the facility at Skellingthorpe is proposed to be operated on a quarterly basis with minimum throughput to ensure the facility was tested operationally. It is also stated that it could be used in emergencies, such as significant spikes in requirements for processing. There is proposed to be no change to the servicing of trailers and the garage workshop area at the Skellingthorpe site; it is proposed to continue as a maintenance and servicing facility.
It is concluded that there would only be minor cumulative impacts in relation to the operation of both sites and that there are significant environmental benefits to the company, users of the service and the general public which outweigh any perceived impacts.
In relation to traffic management and the approach to heavy goods vehicles waiting to deliver to the plant, details are provided setting out an approach to management and education of all drivers. Flow charts are also provided as part of the procedure setting out decision making processes in the event of a variety of scenarios, for example, closure of the A46 preventing access to the site, failure of one of the processing lines and breakdown of the weighbridge or barrier. It is stated that along the boundary of the site adjacent to the A46, a 2.4 metre high paladin fence is proposed to be erected and that this would be
Page 33 between 11 and 13 metres from the eastern road edge and that there is a ditch between the A46 road edge and the site. The nearest edge of any parking area is approximately 28 metres from the carriageway. A 2 metre high close boarded wooden fence is proposed to be erected on the northern and western edge of the vehicle parking area to ensure there is no headlight spill towards the A46 from vehicles manoeuvring or parked within the site’s parking area. It is not intended to remove any existing planting in the area of the A46.
It is confirmed that clay balls would be used in the proposed biofilters.
Transport (including Transport Assessment (Revised August 2019)) contains and amended site plan and takes into account the updated staffing levels for the scheme, as set out above. This results in an increased total number of vehicle trips from the originally proposed 230 two-way trips to 232 two-way trips. The overall conclusions of the Transport Assessment that the proposed development should not have a detrimental impact on the operation of the local highway network or strategic road network are not altered.
Odour (including Odour Impact Assessment (Revised March 2019), Odour Management Plan and Clinical Psychology Assessment Report) provides a more detailed and a wider scope approach to assessing odour than the original submission. It sets out odour rates in relation to a wider range of potential sources of odour associated with the proposed development and assesses potential impacts on a greater number of receptors. The Odour Impact Assessment concludes odour impact would not exceed the 1.5 OUE/m3 98th percentile 1-hour odour benchmark set by the Environment Agency for the most offensive of processes, including animal by-product rendering. It also concludes that the very edge of Hill Holt Wood, at its south west corner, is predicted to be in excess of 1.0 OUE/m3 98th percentile 1-hour, at 1.28 OUE/m3.
The Odour Impact Assessment also considers potential odour impacts at a number of the alternative sites assessed through the EIA process. It concludes that odour impacts may prove to be unacceptable in relation to all but one of the sites assessed, and in relation to land at Grange Lane, Newark, whilst it states that it is feasible the development could be located on this site, it may prevent the full development potential taking place across much of the site. In the assessment of alternative sites, a thresholds of 1.5 OUE/m3, 1.0 OUE/m3 and 0.5 OUE/m3 have been used to conclude that the development might be unacceptable.
An Odour Management Plan has been submitted which sets out what animal by-product processing is, how it is proposed to be undertaken in relation to this application, odour sources, sensitive receptors, odour controls, routine maintenance and inspection, procedures for abnormal events and recording and reporting mechanisms. It is stated that it is intended to be a working document which would be reviewed on an annual basis.
Page 34 A Clinical Psychology Assessment Report has been submitted which considers the impact of odour as a result of the proposed development on the services at Hill Holt Wood in relation to the potential hyper-sensitivity of individuals attending in respect of their diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder. The findings of this report are based on the odour assessment undertaken in relation to the proposed development. The report finds that there is an atypical olfactory (relating to the sense of smell) response to odour in people with Autism Spectrum Disorder. However, it notes that olfactory sensitivity (that is sensitivity to odours) appears to be under- researched and under-discussed in the hyper-sensitivity literature compared to other types of sensory sensitivities in Autism Spectrum Disorder. It states that Hill Holt Wood operates in an area where there are other significant odours and that staff suggested that learner have become familiar with these odours.
It is recommended that all educational facilities local to the proposed development have an awareness of their young person’s sensory profile and ensure that an up to date Education Health and Care Plan makes reference to sensory concerns and their management on a case by case basis so any difficulties could be anticipated. It is recommended that the applicant and Hill Holt Wood enter into a process of discussion and review so as to ensure that if concerns regarding olfaction did arise, these could be discussed and responded to in a timely manner and to the benefit of the learners.
It is concluded that given the unlikely or slight odour footprint which would be made by the proposed development, and given that this is a site within the vicinity of other sources of variable and often strong odour that the learners have habituated to, it cannot be concluded that olfactory issues arising from this proposed development would impede or disrupt learners attending Hill Holt Wood.
Air Quality (including Air Quality Impact Assessment (Revised March 2019) considers both the construction and operational phases of the proposed development. The Assessment states that there would be a low risk of dust impacts resulting from the proposed construction activities without the implementation of mitigation measures; and road traffic emissions associated with both construction and operational phases are not significant. The Critical Level process contributions in relation to the nearby habitat site at Hill Holt Wood are stated to be below the screening criteria and therefore not significant. Assessments of stack heights of 25 metres and 35 metres were undertaken. The assessment of pollutants arising from combustion sources which are combined and discharged from a 25 metre stack were concluded to be slight at the point of maximum impact and from a 35 metre stack were concluded to be negligible at the point of maximum impact. A 35 metre stack is stated to be preferred but the contribution to both long and short-term concentrations are stated to be insignificant for either stack height. Heritage, (including Archaeological Evaluation Report, Assessment of Aerial Imagery for Archaeology, Archaeological Geophysical Survey and Updated Heritage Assessment) states that following submission of
Page 35 the original application archaeological trial trenching of the application site has been undertaken and additional non-intrusive investigation of the adjacent Scheduled Roman Villa has been undertaken.
A total of 19 trial trenches were excavated, 15 of which exposed archaeological features, including probably evidence for the presence of a Roman road (although it is stated that this couldn’t be confirmed); ring ditches; and Iron Age pottery. The archaeology identified in the central field, described as the main area proposed for development, was more sparsely distributed, with some field boundaries, three pits and a post hole but no pottery.
A geophysical survey was undertaken which it is stated recorded potential archaeological remains adjacent to the villa and across a wider area, including potential ditches and pits probably associated with pre-historic occupation of the site, pre-dating the villa. Potential settlement remains were also recorded on land to the west and north west of the villa. A zone of relatively high resistance was also recorded along the conjectured continuation into the site of the Roman road.
A review of aerial photographs is stated to record some of the outer ditches and details of the site but there was no visible evidence on the available aerial imagery for elements of the villa site which may extend beyond the modern field in which the centre of the settlement lies. The assessment identified evidence outside of the villa site boundary and in the buffer areas of likely Iron Age or Roman “rural” or farmstead type occupation and agricultural activity since the prehistoric periods.
In consideration of potential heritage assets to be considered in relation to the proposed development, it is stated that the Roman settlement Crococalana, a Scheduled Monument approximately 2.2km south west of the site, was scoped out of the assessment because it cannot be seen or experienced from the development site or vice versa and does not form part of a tandem view with the development from more distant locations.
The assessment states that the proposed development will affect the significance of three non-designated heritage assets within the site itself, through the direct physical loss of surviving archaeological remains in relation to the remains of Iron Age enclosures and associated activity; a later field system characterised by field ditches; and part of the line of a minor Roman road crossing the site.
The assessment also states that the significance of three heritage assets in the surrounding area would be affected through changes in their setting, in relation to the Scheduled Monument of Roman villa west of Hill Holt Farm; the non-designated probable Iron Age settlement remains in the area surrounding the Scheduled villa site; and the non-designated Iron Age – Roman remains at Brills Farm.
Page 36 It is concluded that the proposed development would result in a degree of harm to the significance of the identified heritage assets, but that this impact “is considered to sit securely within the “less than substantial harm” category in relation to the Scheduled Roman villa; and to constitute a “Low” level of harm to the significance of the non-designated heritage assets”.
It is stated that this harm can be weighed against the significant public benefits deriving from the development.
Ecology (including ES Chapter Addendum: Ecology and Nature Conservation with Breeding Bird Survey, Bat Survey) states that further breeding bird surveys and bat surveys have been undertaken at the site. The additional breeding bird survey recorded a total of 41 different species of bird on the site and within the land ownership to the east and a further species was recorded during a nocturnal bat survey. All recorded species are stated to be common or widespread within the county of Lincolnshire and across the UK. The breeding bird assemblage on site is no more than of site value.
Additional bat survey work was undertaken between July and August 2018 and between April and September 2019. In addition to this, a data search for bat records within a 5km radius of the site was undertaken in February 2019 and the Summary Report of the Nottinghamshire Barbastelle Project was also reviewed. The site was found to be used by a variety of species of bats for hibernating, roosting, foraging and commuting. Mitigation and compensation measures are proposed to address any potential harm caused during the construction and operational phases of this development.
Landscape and Visual Impact (including Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment Addendum) confirms that the originally submitted photomontages were accurate and assesses additional visual receptors and viewpoints. The Addendum document states that the proposed development would introduce a new built element into the view, on the horizon, in relation to a number of the additional viewpoints considered and that, once the proposed mitigation planting has matured, the development will be viewed through and amongst new planting, with the ridgeline becoming more vegetated and less open. It is acknowledged that the stack and associated smoke would be visible when the proposed planting has matured. Overall it is concluded that the proposed development would not have a significant landscape and visual impact, albeit that there would be some adverse impacts.
Noise (including Noise Assessment (Revised September 2019)) includes an amended site location plan to reflect the red line site boundary but is unaltered in all other respects.
In relation to potential noise impacts on learners at Hill Holt Wood with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, the response by the applicant document states that there would be no discernible impact on any students within the site.
Page 37 Flood Risk and Drainage (including Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (Revised October 2019)) includes further details of existing drainage arrangements across and beyond the site; details of how surface water from areas of hardstanding within the site would be dealt with; and proposes that foul drainage would be addressed through a self- contained foul effluent treatment plant with discharge of cleaned effluent into a nearby watercourse given the rural nature of the area.
In addition to this, a further appendix is added to the document addressing issues raised in the Regulation 25 request letter. Appendix D confirms that surface water run-off rates have been estimated by dividing the site into sections.
It states that flood risk to the A46 would not increase as a result of the proposed development and the intercepting of rainfall and limiting discharge would present a benefit.
The originally proposed site bunding has been removed and replaced with containment curbing around the edge of the hardstanding which would be bonded to the concrete service yard slab. A covered concrete channel would be cast into the service yard slab to direct the surface water to the storage tank. It is stated that the entrance road is effectively just a commercial access road and sealed lorries would not pose a pollution risk in this location. Full details of any curbing is requested to be left to the detailed design stage.
Reiterates that pollution is low risk around the site.
Lighting (including Lighting Impact Assessment Report) classifies the sites as being within a “Low District Brightness Area” (E2) with existing lighting along the A46 in the vicinity of the site and limited existing lighting on Folly Lane near to the proposed new entrance to the site. New lighting is proposed for the following:
• Folly Lane and the new access junction to the site; • access roads within the site; • clean lorry park; • walkways between main offices, shower blocks and control room; • water treatment plant area; • around the Category 1 and Category 3 processing buildings, including turning circles and loading bays; and • around the clean water holding pond.
In all cases the type of lighting proposed is considered in relation to design, light source and glare class. LED luminaires are proposed to be used. It is acknowledged that the control of the light distribution of installations is necessary to limit obtrusive light and sky glow and that in some cases, lighting can be intrusive at night, for example, in rural and open areas where lighting can be seen as an intrusion in an otherwise darkened environment.
Page 38 Consideration is also given to the use of adaptive switched or controlled lighting in certain areas.
The report concludes that with good design and management, the effect of additional lighting to the environment could be kept to an acceptable level contributing very little to the existing situation in many areas.
Waste is proposed to be dealt with during both the construction and operational phases of the development. It is stated that during construction, opportunities would be sought for the re-use of materials on site and consideration given to the choice of material for construction with a view to minimising existing and future waste streams. It is also stated that the ABP processing itself recycles almost 100% of the animal by-product to tallow and dry product which are then used in a variety of ways and that the majority of the water used in the process if recycled as steam.
Energy and Raw Material Usage confirms that natural gas is proposed to be used in the facility and that the aim of the plant is to use this as efficiently as possible. Plant effluent is proposed to be minimised as all “dirty water” is processed on-site and reused.
Water and Power Supply It is stated that there is an existing water supply to the site which could be upgraded if necessary and that Western Power has confirmed that sufficient power is available and a new dual circuit underground system could be installed. There is a mains gas pipeline on the site and the applicants have various options to obtain gas supply on site.
Cumulative Impacts notes that the application for a new ABP processing plant at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe (reference PL/0055/18) has been refused planning permission and the applicant has a lease on the site until 2041.
A right of access across the site is stated to now be uninterrupted as the secure compound gates have been moved and the field access would be fenced off from the site.
Other Information addresses a number of issues. It is acknowledged that a high pressure mains gas pipe runs through the site and it is stated that the applicant has chosen to respect the 6 metre easement with all building construction, except for the access road across the pipe in two locations and a pedestrian access, each of which would be acceptable with respect to the guidelines.
In relation to plant breakdown, flowcharts of procedures have been submitted setting out how such issues would be addressed.
Confirmation is provided that the references to a control booth and a weighbridge office refer to the same building and a drawing of the proposed barriers is submitted.
Page 39 Non-Environmental Impact Assessment Further Information
31. In addition to the request for further information under Regulation 25 of the EIA Regulations, further information was also requested in relation to non- Environmental Impact Assessment matters. This information was also received on 21 October 2019. The further information was submitted as a document entitled “Additional Non-EIA Regulation 25 Request by LCC Response by Applicant” and included the following:
Minerals Safeguarding (including Appendix B – Minerals Assessment) states that approximately 70% of the site has sand and gravel with the potential to be worthy of safeguarding, with geological information suggesting that the mineral is of potential workable quality but of limited thickness. The Minerals Assessment applies stand-offs in relation to the existing residential properties at the site, the gas pipeline which crosses the site and from all roads, access tracks, ownership boundaries and areas of significant vegetation. In light of these factors, the Minerals Assessment estimates that there is approximately 175,000 tonnes of potentially recoverable sand and gravel at the site.
Three scenarios for potential extraction are considered. The first is a stand- alone extraction, requiring both extraction and processing on site. It is concluded that the investment required to undertake this method of extraction could not be justified and that the site could not be operated economically on this basis.
Medium scale extraction is also considered as an option, involving the exportation of extracted mineral to an existing site for processing. Given the proximity of the site to Norton Bottoms Quarry, it is stated to be theoretically feasible to transport extracted mineral to the established processing plant at this quarry. It is acknowledged that this would require contractual arrangements between the parties and planning permission at Norton Bottoms Quarry for the processing of imported mineral but that the capital expenditure in comparison to a stand-alone extraction would be significantly reduced. However, it is stated that the costs involved would be likely to prove this option uneconomic, with the volume of recoverable mineral insufficient to support the costs. It is also stated that the extraction of a relatively limited area of mineral would result in an incongruous landscape which would render the site wholly unsuitable for either continued agricultural production or the development. Concerns are also raised regarding potential flooding of any excavations.
The third option of smaller scale “incidental extraction” is considered. The development is stated to require a significant volume of aggregates within its construction and consideration is given to site-derived aggregates. It is stated that significant areas of the central and southern sections of the site will be required to be excavated to create the proposed water storage lagoons and that mineral extracted from these areas, together with other areas across the site to facilitate development, should be retained and used
Page 40 within the development wherever possible. It is also stated that this would reduce the quantity of material required to be imported to the site.
It is stated that there would be no sterilisation of mineral within the adjoining land as a result of the development, and it would not prejudice the effective working of any permitted reserve or mineral operation.
Alternatives (including Appendix C – Assessment of Alternative Sites) considers alternative sites to the proposed location. It notes that an assessment of alternative sites was included within the originally submitted Planning, Design and Access Statement and this latest submission is intended to update that assessment.
This assessment reconsiders a number of the previously assessed employment sites and assesses additional employment sites. None of the alternative sites assessed is considered to fulfil the requirements for the proposed development and a variety of reasons are given for this, including, insufficient capacity on the site to accommodate the development, proximity to residential properties, the facility would be a “bad neighbour” to existing or proposed uses and it wouldn’t meet policy expectations for the employment site.
Locational Considerations (including Appendix D – Locational Planning Policy Appraisal) considers the planning policy context in light of no alternative sites having been identified. This states that the proposed development is consistent with the objectives of the Core Strategy and Development Management Policies DPD and that given the development accords with Policy LP5 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, it is also in accordance with Policy LP2. It is also stated to conform with Policy LP55.
Unilateral Undertaking states that due to business constraints and restrictions, no unilateral undertaking will now be submitted.
Fire and Rescue confirms that an adequate supply of water would be provided in the case of a fire, either in the form of a fire hydrant from the piped water supply to the site or from the open pond with at least 45,000 litres available at all times of the year. In relation to the accessibility to the site, the facility is proposed to be open either running, being maintained or cleaned, 24 hours a day, seven days a week and therefore there would always be access to the site, including manual override of all gates should a power failure occur.
Construction Environmental Management Plan will not be submitted at this stage and it is stated that it could be dealt with through the imposition of a pre-commencement condition.
Plans and Elevations states that details of the filling station tank are submitted.
Page 41 Site and Surroundings
32. The application site is an irregular shaped parcel of land, 11.36 hectares in size. It lies adjacent to Folly Lane to the east and adjacent to the A46 trunk road to the north west. The address for the application site is Norton Disney, however, this settlement lies approximately 3 km to the east. The settlement of Brough lies approximately 2.4 km to the south west and the larger village of Collingham lies approximately 2.7 km to the north west.
33. The application site is located on a ridge of relatively high ground which falls away to the south. The site itself is predominantly open arable fields, with pockets of woodland, such as that approximately 300 metres to the north east of the site at Hill Holt Wood. The site is a farm site which is currently unoccupied and is host to a pair of semi-detached bungalows and a range of farm buildings. There are small pockets of trees within the site. Access to the site is from Folly Lane, with one part of this access into the site leading to the collection of buildings and dwellings, and another part crossing the site to provide access to a field to the west.
34. Immediately to the east of the site, on the opposite side of Folly Lane is the archaeological site of a Roman villa, which is a Scheduled Monument. The settlement now known as Brough, which lies to the south west of much lower ground, is also a Scheduled Monument as a Roman settlement (Crococalana).
35. A high pressure gas mains pipe runs through the site, along an approximately north-south alignment.
Junction of A46 and Folly Lane
Page 42 View towards proposed staff entrance off Folly Lane View looking east across application site towards proposed main processing area
Main Planning Considerations
Planning Policy Context
36. The Revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published in February 2019 (with an amendment in June 2019 to remove paragraph 209a following a legal judgement) and sets out the Government’s planning policies for England. It is a material planning consideration in the determination of planning applications. In assessing and determining development proposals, Local Planning Authorities should apply the presumption in favour of sustainable development. The main policies/statements set out in the NPPF which are relevant to this proposal are as follows: 10, 11, 39, 47, 54, 55, 56, 80, 82, 83, 84, 102-111, 124-131, 155, 163, 165, 170-175, 178-183, 184-200, 203 and 206.
In addition to the NPPF, in March 2014 the Government published the on- line National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG). In October 2014 the National Planning Policy for Waste was published which requires that in the determination of planning applications consideration is given to the impact of the waste development on the surrounding area, pushing waste up the Waste Hierarchy and contains a set of locational criteria against which proposals for new waste development should be assessed, including protection of water quality and flood risk management, landscape and visual impacts, nature conservation, conserving the historic environment, traffic and access, odour and noise.
The National Design Guide was published in October 2019 and sets out an aim to achieve high quality places and buildings and provides guidance on how to do this in practice. It sets out the Government’s priorities for well- designed places in the form of ten characteristics. Of the ten identified characteristics, the ones of most relevant in this case relate to context (C1), heritage (C2), identity (I1), movement (M1), nature (N1, N3), resources (R2) and lifespan (L2).
Page 43 Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2016) (CSDMP), the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Site Locations Document (2017) and the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017) (CLLP) form the development plan in relation to this application.
Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) (2016)
The following policies of the CSDMP are relevant to this proposal:
Policy M11 (Safeguarding of Mineral Resources) Policy W1 (Future requirements for new waste facilities) Policy W3 (Spatial Strategy for New Waste Facilities) Policy W7: Small Scale Waste Facilities Policy DM1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) Policy DM2 (Climate Change) Policy DM3 (Quality of Life and Amenity) Policy DM4: Historic Environment Policy DM6 (Impact on Landscape and Townscape) Policy DM8: Nationally Designated Site of Biodiversity and Geological Conservation Value Policy DM9: Local Sites of Biodiversity Conservation Value Policy DM13 (Sustainable Transport Movements) Policy DM14 (Transport by Road) Policy DM15 (Flooding and Flood Risk) Policy DM16 (Water Resources) Policy DM17 (Cumulative Impacts)
Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Site Locations Document (2017)
The application site is not identified in this document for allocation. This does not necessarily mean that the site is unacceptable, but that it needs to be considered in relation to the CSDMP.
Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2017)
The following policies of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan are of relevance in this case:
Policy LP1: A Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development reflects the NPPF’s approach to sustainable development.
Policy LP2: The Spatial Strategy and Settlement Hierarchy adopts a restrictive approach towards development in the countryside unless a specific set of criteria are met, including development essential to the effective operation of agriculture, renewable energy generation, proposals falling under policy LP55 and waste developments which accord with the separate Mineral and Waste Local Development Documents.
Page 44 Policy LP3: Level and Distribution of Growth states that the plan’s aim is to facilitate the delivery of 36,960 new dwellings and the creation of 11,894 Full Time Equivalent net new jobs between 2012 and 2036. The key focus for the delivery of this is in the Lincoln Strategy Area, Gainsborough and Sleaford, however, 12% of this growth is anticipated to come forward via other settlements listed in, and in accordance with, the settlement hierarchy and Policy LP4 (relating to growth in defined villages).
Policy LP5: Delivering Prosperity and Jobs states that in principle, proposals which assist in the delivery of economic prosperity and job growth to the area will be supported. Within this policy, it is stated employment proposals in locations not covered by Strategic Employment Sites, Sustainable Urban Extensions, Established Employment Areas or Local Employment Site categories will be supported provided a set of six criteria are met. These criteria relate to a requirement to demonstrate there are no suitable or appropriate sites or buildings within allocated sites or within the built up area of the existing settlement; the scale of the proposal is commensurate with the scale and character of the existing settlement; there is no significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, and / or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; no adverse impacts on the local highway network; no impact on viability of delivering any allocated employment sites; and opportunities are maximised for modal shift away from the private car.
Policy LP9: Health and Wellbeing states that the potential for achieving positive mental and physical health outcomes will be taken into account and that where any potential adverse health impacts are identified, the applicant will be expected to demonstrate how these will be addressed and mitigated.
Policy LP13: Accessibility and Transport seeks to ensure an efficient and safe transport network, minimising the need to travel. It states that any development that has severe transport implications will not be granted planning permission unless deliverable mitigation measures have been identified and secured to make the development acceptable.
Policy LP14: Managing Water Resources and Flood Risk seeks to ensure that development is safe for the duration of its lifetime, does not increase the risk of flooding to the development site or elsewhere, incorporates Sustainable Drainage Systems and protects the water environment.
Policy LP17: Landscape, Townscape and Views seeks to protect and enhance the intrinsic value of the landscape and townscape, including the setting of settlements, maintaining and responding to natural and man-made features which positively contribute to the character of the area, including historic buildings and monuments and intervisibility between rural historic settlements. Where a proposal may result in significant harm, it may, exceptionally, be permitted if the overriding benefits of the development demonstrably outweigh the harm; in such circumstances the harm should be minimised and mitigated. All development should take account of views into and out of development areas. The considerations are particularly important
Page 45 when determining proposals which have the potential to impact upon Lincoln’s historic skyline.
Policy LP21: Biodiversity and Geodiversity seeks to protect, manage and enhance biodiversity and geodiversity.
Policy LP25: The Historic Environment protects, conserves and seeks opportunities to enhance the historic environment. Sets out a requirement for the appropriate assessment and justification of proposals which would affect the significance of a heritage asset, including any contribution made by its setting.
Policy LP26: Design and Amenity requires all development to achieve a high quality sustainable design that contributes positively to local character, landscape and townscape. All development is required to respect the site and its surroundings including landscape character and identity and protect important views into, out of or through the site. Proposals must protect amenities, including in relation to light, noise and odour.
Policy LP55: Development in the Countryside sets out the criteria against which proposals for non-residential development in the countryside and agricultural diversification will be assessed. These include that the rural location must be justified; the proposal is accessible; it would not conflict with neighbouring uses; and is of a size and scale commensurate with the proposed use and the rural character of the location. This policy also seeks to protect the best and most versatile agricultural land.
Results of Consultation and Publicity
37. (a) Norton Disney Parish Council – land designated as countryside and dirty industrial processes do not fit easily with rural industries and activities which are sited nearby.
Concern raised about discharge of noxious substances and impacts on weather conditions which are not “average”. This is a continuous day and night process. A 1985 Telegraph Magazine article analysed the country air in Norton Disney and found relatively high levels of nitrogen and sulphur dioxide, possibly explained by the proximity to a line of power stations in the Trent valley, therefore, the dirty air and acid rain would spread over a considerable distance from the proposed site.
It has been asserted, not without evidence, that the gases from the plant would completely defoliate the local woodland within a period of about 25 years, mainly in a south westerly direction. Hill Holt Wood is the nearest and most vulnerable. Concern that these substances may enter the food chain.
Page 46 Loss of agricultural land within the local area, primarily due to quarrying. This site was in agricultural use but no longer but it is for the applicant, as landowner, to explain why.
Watercourses that access the Rivers Witham and Trent drain from the proposal site and the drinking water is pumped from the underground reserves. The farming industry irrigates crops from boreholes which, if contaminated, could enter the food chain. Further investigation of the water table should be undertaken as it is believed to be abnormally high.
The applicant has breached Health and Safety and Environmental legislation previously and their existing plant creates an odour nuisance, even after considerable investment. The odour management techniques have not been tried and tested in this country. It is reasonable to assume that there will be odour as no 100% categorical assurance from the applicant that there won’t be.
Refer to heritage information submitted with the application and that submitted with the Lancaster Bomber memorial planning application. There is a Roman villa and numerous Roman and pre-Roman finds. Crop marks are also visible on aerial photographs. There is also evidence of Iron Age settlements in close proximity to the site. The site is too important to be damaged by this development and would be lost forever.
In considering other sites, it is acknowledged that there is the potential for causing a nuisance but no consideration is given to the potential for causing nuisance to nearby businesses, or affecting their viability in relation to the proposal site. For example, businesses at Hill Holt Wood, Brills and White Hall Farms, Oakhill Leisure Park, Lost Village Festival, Grade I church and a myriad of small businesses. Great concern about the impacts on the residential school for autistic children which is less than half a mile from the site, as there are now doubts about its future as a result of these proposals, especially in relation to odour.
Whilst the potential to create 30 new jobs will be an important consideration in the determination of the application, there is also the potential for job losses at some neighbouring businesses, which could become less attractive due to their proximity to the proposed plant. For example, Hill Holt Wood employ a large number of staff, attract funding from various bodies and provide a well-used eco woodland conference and wedding facility. Other businesses support the leisure industry and jobs may be lost.
The technology is largely untested and from areas with a history of some major catastrophes, perhaps the worst being Chernobyl. The supply chain providing servicing and parts may be affected by the location of the plant and it remains unclear how Brexit will impact
Page 47 upon this. Do not believe there is certainty that the plant can be operated as intended.
There are health risks from the carcasses, especially from avian species. In an area where free-range and organic poultry are reared close-by, the transfer of viruses by flies and wasps should not be ignored. Any spillage on the A46 is also a concern to a local chicken producer.
Historically businesses in Norton Disney have struggled to recruit unskilled staff. Public transport does not access the area and the nearest bus stop is in Witham St Hughs, approximately two miles away.
In view of the number and types of vehicles accessing the site, consider the access to and from the A46 is wholly inappropriate and inherently dangerous.
Understand that there is spare capacity in the industry at present. Already have two rendering plants locally and it would not be appropriate for more to spread across Lincolnshire.
Following receipt of a representation of support from the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders (24 July 2018), Norton Disney Parish Council submitted further representations:
The letter from the National Federation of Meat and Food Traders, although well-meaning, is misguided and without basis or merit. Consider that this representation should be discounted. The reasons given for this include that there would be increased capacity if both current rendering plant applications were approved; no employment benefits have been proved; query what environmental benefits there are of having local woodland stripped of foliage within 25 years due to chemical emissions; impact on the proposed new residential school for young autistic adults and state that this will bring employment benefits; not well-sited as just off the A46, close to the site of a recent fatal accident, and with a highly dangerous access; and impact on the Lancaster Bomber memorial.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to state that this further representation should be read with previous one. Note refusal of planning permission for application reference PL/0055/19 at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe and the possibility of that decision being appealed.
Views of the Parish and parishioners have not changed by anything which has been proposed or alterations offered; it should be rejected.
Need has not been proved and will be an increase in throughput from current levels achieved at Skellingthorpe, albeit in the future.
Page 48 Will have to import throughput material from further afield due to issues with meat consumption / veganism / vegetarianism / global warming / methane gas production to justify £28 million investment, when already overcapacity in the industry.
A46 junction with Folly Lane is an accident waiting to happen and cannot understand why a roundabout has not been suggested with the cost borne by the applicant.
Admit impacts on the Roman settlements and Bomber County Gateway Trust’s project.
Statement regarding fully enclosed HGC trailers is misleading, as not all of them are and full enclosure is necessary to minimise odour, otherwise it will be unacceptable, especially during the warmer months which are becoming more prevalent.
Concerns about issues regarding the lease and the relationship between the lessor and lessee which require resolving and mean production must continue (at Skellingthorpe).
(b) Local County Council Member, Councillor Mrs M Overton – who is a member of the Planning and Regulation Committee reserves her position until the date of the meeting.
(c) Local County Council Member, Councillor M Thompson (adjoining) – at present traffic including HGVs will be able to access Folly Lane from the outside carriageway of the A46 northbound by turning right and crossing the southbound carriageway. The road at this point is subject to a 70mph speed limit, presenting a substantial additional hazard to traffic and potential costs arising from traffic delays and road traffic collisions. Unless this access can be physically closed or other safer access constructed to prevent traffic from crossing the southbound carriageway to enter Folly Lane, would wish these comments to be viewed as an objection to the application.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(d) Collingham Parish Council (adjoining) – object to the proposal due to traffic and access; noise, smell and pollution, design and visual impact; economic impact; health and safety; and ecology and landscape. Please refer to the representations of Swinderby Parish Council in relation to these matters, which are covered thoroughly.
There is no certainty regarding technologies and consider this is an experiment. Concern has been raised by the adjacent landowner about drainage and potential for ground water contamination, which haven’t been sufficiently considered.
Page 49 Evidence that people with autism react badly to noise and odour pollution. It is an inappropriate location given the proximity of two special education establishments catering for children with autism in Swinderby and Norton Disney. Ex-forces personnel with PTSD also react badly to these stimuli and there are a high number in Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. As such, the proposal is contrary to Central Lincolnshire Local Plan Policy LP9.
Concern about traffic diverting through Collingham if there is an incident on the A46. If planning permission is granted, request a condition is imposed to ensure lorries will not use the village roads which are inadequate and have substandard junctions, for the use of such vehicles to gain access to Potter Hill and then across the A46 to Folly Lane. There appears to be no contingency planning for traffic incidents, which occur frequently.
It is difficult to find any planning or other justification for two such plants within the County of Lincolnshire, especially as they are so closely located.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded stating a continued objection on the same grounds as previously, including in relation to traffic and access; noise, smell and pollution; design and visual impact; economic impact; health and health and safety; ecology; and landscape. The additional information does not fully address the issues previously raised.
If the application is approved, wish to see a traffic routeing plan to ensure that any traffic impact on neighbouring / surrounding communities is minimised, taking into account any re-routeing following any incident on the A1 or A46. Neighbouring communities already experience significant problems when there is an incident and any additional traffic will only impact further and should be prevented.
(e) Swinderby Parish Council (adjoining) – object to the proposal. Despite recent works to the A46, as a result of a number of fatal accidents in the location of the Folly Lane and Potter Hill junctions, the addition of slow moving traffic in this vicinity is likely to result in more accidents occurring. The Folly Lane junction has limited visibility of approaching high speed traffic from Lincoln. Proposals state there will be no stacking of lorries on the A46 and that they will continue north to the Halfway House roundabout to return down the other carriageway but concerned the Newark Road / Wood Lane junction will be used to U-turn to minimise mileage and that has limited visibility of high speed traffic from Lincoln. A ban on U-turns at this junction must be considered.
Conflicts with Policy LP5 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan as will not alleviate the current traffic conditions but will add to them.
Page 50 Conflicts with Policy LP13 as there is no transport choice other than road, for either movement of people or goods. The site is at a location with a poor safety record, is not suitable and no consideration has been given to improving road infrastructure to alleviate the issue.
Conflicts with policies LP14 and LP26 as the odour, noise and environmental impact on the neighbouring land and properties will have adverse impacts for a significant radius around the proposed development. Insufficient consideration appears to have been given to the treatment of water on the site and potential contamination of existing watercourses and storage ponds located close by.
Conflicts with the Central Lincolnshire Vision and Policy LP17 as the visual impact on all traffic entering the county along the A46 will see the buildings, including the chimney as they approach. This will also significantly detract from the recently approved Lancaster Bomber memorial located approximately 50 metres away, which will have a considerable impact on the visitor experience / impression of the county.
Conflicts with Policy LP25 due to the proximity of the Roman Villa to the development site and the Iron Age remains.
Conflicts with the Central Lincolnshire Vision, Policy LP5, Policy LP7 and Policy LP55 as the many agricultural and niche employers, e.g. Hill Holt Wood, who are currently economically vibrant in the area are likely to suffer, as is the visitor economy which many of these businesses support, as a result of all the objections stated above. It is envisaged that more jobs will be lost in the key sectors than would be gained in a non-key sector. It is difficult to see how LP55E could be supported as so many of the criteria are not going to be met.
Conflicts with Policy LP1 and LP2 as it will not benefit any sector of the community, nor will it regenerate the place or community in which it is being built. There is no proposal included that this will improve the facilities, services or infrastructure in the vicinity of this new facility.
Villa Farm is a green field site, agricultural in function and in an agricultural setting. Commercial development of this nature is not suited to this location.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded stating that the additional information fails to address the concerns previously raised and the application should be rejected. It is requested that the County Council objectively scrutinise this application against CLLP policies LP1, LP2, LP7, LP13, LP14, LP17, LP20, LP21, LP22, LP25 and LP55; the Lincolnshire Biodiversity Action Plan; and other related plans.
Page 51 The visual impact of the development is significantly underestimated and would be the first impression of many visitors to our area. It could lead to development on adjacent land to create an industrial park. The plans submitted by the Bomber County Gateway Trust are a more fitting welcome to visitors to Lincolnshire and pay tribute to all those who served in World War II. The development would detract from the landmark.
A significant bat population is identified in the area, including the Brown long-Eared bat which is a priority species under the UK Post 2010 Biodiversity Framework and protected under Annex IV of the European Habitats Directive. Destroying bat sites can be viewed as a criminal activity. Threats to bats include habitat loss, building and development work, lighting and roads. The development would substantially destroy the environment needed by bats and it is difficult to ascertain how the lighting mitigation plan will protect the bat population.
There are no assurances that the lighting would be suitable for the dark-sky environment in this area. The application by the Bomber County Gateway Trust excluded any lighting without planning permission and a consistent approach should be taken by rejecting the application.
Nothing addresses or overcomes the issues related to the historic environment. The applicant has yet to understand the historical importance of the area, including Roman remains and settlements, including a villa, Iron Age settlement and furnaces, and Bronze Age flints and axe heads; evidence of which is further enhanced by recent research undertaken and documents produced by the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group. This area is a historical asset which could be developed as a tourist attraction but not with an animal rendering plant as a centre piece.
Challenge the assumption that the expected air leakage from lorries would be one change per hour as many factors determine the rate of leakage and the chemicals released will depend on the extent of the decomposition of the contents. Decomposition can produce the toxic gases sulphur dioxide and hydrogen sulphide and the greenhouse gases methane and carbon dioxide. High summer temperatures will speed up decomposition. It is difficult to ascertain the impact of these odours on vulnerable children in local schools, some of them residential, but it may trigger reactions that are difficult to comprehend.
Concerned about unacceptable noise levels 24 hours per day for residents.
Page 52 The disposal of certain categories of wastewater to be discharged into the water course together with surface water is unacceptable, regarding pollutants and volume to be discharged.
The development fails to comply with policy LP13 in terms of accessibility and transport.
(f) Witham St Hughs Parish Council (adjoining) – unacceptable to the community and council for many reasons, including those set out below.
The applicants’ comments about the local plan are unacceptable and expect that the normal officer / committee process will be adhered to and will decline or decide the application on its own merits in line with both the local plans of Lincolnshire County Council and North Kesteven District Council.
Note that the proposal is described in the context of alternatives as “not good neighbours” and raise concerns that landowners and operators from some of the alternative sites considered have not been contacted by the applicant.
The proposals would operate on a 24/7 basis and would cause noise and emissions having severe and unacceptable impacts on residents in the area and impacts on Witham St Hughs primary school, estimated to be 2.2 miles away, affecting the wellbeing, mental health and learning of the children.
There would be an unacceptable level of harmful emissions and particulate matter that will flow across the lower lying village given the historic wind rose data, flora and fauna and the residents would suffer greatly as a consequence.
Concerns about impacts on the parish allotments which may result in their closure and additional costs to the parish to relocate them after conducting analysis of PM and emissions.
Consider the applicants’ comments when advising residents and the media have been lacking in technical detail, including claims the smells from the sugar beet factory in Newark will mask odours. Consider that Witham St Hughs will suffer from offensive emissions from the plant.
The residents and council have formed valuable connections with Hill Holt Wood which is an amenity used by hundreds of residents, tourists and school children to explore the natural world. Concerned about the impacts on this and negative impacts being irreparable resulting in the loss of a valuable educational and recreational facility.
Page 53 Restaurants and take away businesses in Witham St Hughs have expressed concerns.
The proposed traffic access to Folly Lane from the A46 eastbound is unacceptable and presents an extremely high probability of serious road traffic accidents on a section of the A46 which is well known for fatal road traffic accidents. It would be unacceptable to provide access for HGVs by crossing the dual carriageway. Impacts if traffic is diverted to Halfway House roundabout, rather than crossing the A46, particularly at peak times.
The visual impacts on approaching Lincoln from the west on the A46 will destroy the visual amenity of the Witham Valley Park and detract from the nature of the area, particularly the 35 metre stack.
This is not a designated site for waste in the Lincolnshire County Council Local Plan.
The current and decided planning application for the Phase 3 development of Witham St Hughs would suffer from the high emissions and the effect in the construction and sale of much needed additional housing and infrastructure would be detrimental. Damaging impacts on the Phase 3 development will have direct and negative effects on the planned infrastructure provisions for the current Phases 1 and 2 development.
The proximity to the proposed nature reserve on the Swinderby airfield would be unacceptable and contrary to the concept of the nature reserve.
There is no need for this development and the industry has an over- supply of capacity. The current application at the existing Skellingthorpe plant (PL/0055/18) also has a bearing on the capacity of the industry.
Local farmers and landowners have made valid and qualified representations of concern regarding combined emissions and the potential for local infections from the imported grades 2 and 3 animal by-product from such a plant.
It is unacceptable as it is intended to process imported waste, not produced within Lincolnshire and so is again unacceptable in the local plan.
It would not be a sustainable business and would not bring prosperity or jobs to the area. A number of local small business owners have indicated they will be forced to close if this application was approved. It would also impact business on the Network 46 industrial estate which provide further local employment.
Page 54 Concerns are raised about the public consultation undertaken being inadequate and misleading.
The location would require high volumes of water which are not available. Also believe there is not an available electricity supply so concerned this will result in an application for a CHP power plant.
Whilst not a planning consideration, the proximity of the plant to residential properties would cause financial and emotional distress to the residents of the area. The proposal would affect between 15,000 and 20,000 residents with varying impacts.
Serious and grave concerns regarding contamination of water tables from the plant and the historic events of the operator.
Plants in proximity to conurbations have led to problems with odour, additional traffic and noise, removing the enjoyment and amenity of the location.
Concerns regarding impacts on the historic environment, including the Roman villa which has yet to be fully evaluated and explored.
Request that if minded to approve, the officers and / or committee attend the current plants at Skellingthorpe and Low Marnham; and attend the site at Villa Farm to familiarise themselves with the nature and emissions of such a plant and the physical proximity to residences and local businesses.
Have full support of Caroline Johnson MP and Rob Jenrick MP to oppose this application.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and received two further representations stating the continued objection to the proposed development and included the original objections. In addition, it is stated that the Further Information provides no additional information that eliminates the highway hazards or improves upon the original application for the given location. The application remains objectionable in its entirety due to the proposed location.
Further object to the submitted consultee document from Highways England who have provided no valid test or examination of the highways junction at Folly Lane /A46, this being the second submission from Highways England after an initial objection saw their first submission withdrawn. The junctions and sections of this highway are noted as accident black spots and the addition of slow moving HGVs across the carriageway just below the brow of the hill will present the highest probability of a fatal road traffic accident. This must be addressed.
Page 55 A further objection is raised by the community of serving and veterans of the British Armed Forces on the location and its close proximity to the Lancaster Bomber site.
(g) Stapleford Parish Council (adjoining) – at the time of writing this report, no comments received, including following reconsultation on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted.
(h) Thurlby Parish Meeting (adjoining) – the parish has been blighted for over 40 years by gravel extraction from Thurlby Quarry and Swinderby Airfield Quarry and don’t want this development as unwelcome additional pollution to our environment from smell, traffic and watercourse contamination, with all associated health risks.
Have recently contributed to the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and a Holiday Home Project at Thurlby Lake and Lost Village Festival at Oakhill Leisure which would be at risk if this application is approved, with significant loss to the economy.
The development does not comply with the Local Plan, including policies LP1, LP2, LP5, LP7, LP14, LP17, LP20, LP21, LP25 and LP55 of the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan.
Understand that there is a current proposal to build a new rendering plant, hope the Planning Committee will see this, as the Parish Council does, as a more appropriate solution.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded stating that the additional information has not in any sense eased the original objections.
Due to the continued operation of the existing Skellingthorpe plant and the recent step change towards more vegan provision in the national food chain, the need for additional capacity at Norton Disney must be reduced / eliminated.
Importation from outside Lincolnshire is not a sustainable business model and waste should be processed close to where it is generated.
Not confident that smell free outcomes will be delivered. There are other examples of the use of Best Available Technology in the UK where local neighbourhoods are polluted. Operator failure and equipment breakdown are always a risk and don’t want this exposure as a community downwind.
Risks to local historic heritage in the vicinity significantly greater than originally perceived due to further surveys by local experts and Historic England.
Page 56 Economic gain to the local area through job creation will be reduced by continuing operations at Skellingthorpe. Strong tourism job gains with local development of caravan and holiday lodges / fishing lakes / music festivals would be at risk. None of these activities, which are supported in CLLP, will want to be next to the plant.
Can’t understand why Highways England and LCC Highways are unconcerned about the 200 plus daily HGV movements on the A46 and Folly Lane. If there is an incident on the A46 traffic is diverted through Thurlby and other local villages. These HGVs are bound to have spillages and consequent health risk.
A large factory with a 35 metre chimney and 24 hour operational lighting is simply not an appropriate fit for an open countryside location. It will sit on the brow of a hill and be seen by everyone as their first impression of Lincolnshire from the west. It will overshadow the new Bomber Command Memorial, with its close connection to Lincolnshire heritage and blight the surrounding area. If there really is a need, it should be located in a more appropriate industrially zoned area.
(i) Bassingham Parish Council (adjoining) – object to the proposals. This is a predominantly rural and agricultural area and the proposed industrial facility is contrary to the recently adopted Local Plan. Concerned about the impact on the recently approved Lancaster Bomber memorial and that the development will be a backdrop to it.
The extra vehicles will decimate local roads which are constantly used as a cut through.
The land is still in agricultural use and the applicant is trying to save money using agricultural land.
There is no need for another rendering plant as there are already two in the local area and the industry is carrying spare capacity.
This beautiful archaeological landscape will be destroyed by the monstrosity that will be seen.
The immediate area has a sensitive water table and watercourses flow into the River Witham which would destroy local wildlife and have a detrimental effect on the whole region.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(j) Carlton le Moorland Parish Council (adjoining) – object to the proposal for a number of reasons. The application is an industrial process on agricultural land and is therefore not in accordance with
Page 57 the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. There are three meat rendering plants within a 20 mile radius, including proposals to update and expand Skellingthorpe, so why is another plant required in Lincolnshire? In relation to alternative sites, the applicant acknowledged they were “not good neighbours”. When lorries outside the ownership and control of Lincoln Proteins visit the site they will not necessarily have all of the odour reduction technology and thereby pollute the surrounding area. It would be a huge industrial development on a greenfield site next to a number of local businesses, such as farms, equestrian facilities, educational facilities, wedding venues, bed and breakfast accommodation, which would be adversely affected by odours and risk of odours. It would have an adverse impact on leisure activities such as those at Oakhill Leisure and the Lost Village Festival. Visitors would be reluctant to book outdoor leisure activities due to the close location of a rendering plant and its odours. The widely acclaimed community and social enterprise Hill Holt Wood would be severely impacted by this development and there would be a clear threat to biodiversity.
It would result in significant levels of heavy goods traffic movements within a rural community. The proposed access to Folly Lane from the A46 is unacceptable and crossing over the dual carriageway whilst fully laden would be extremely dangerous. The junction is not designed for this. It is assumed that there will be implications for additional traffic along Folly Lane and the road to Norton Disney and other local villages.
The visibility of the proposed industrial structure (including a 35 metre high chimney) whilst travelling towards Lincoln on the A46 will destroy the visual amenity of the Witham Valley Park and detract from the nature of this area. It will also have negative impacts on the Lancaster Bomber memorial and is not compatible with this Lincolnshire Gateway feature.
The Lincolnshire County Council Local Plan does not identify Villa Farm as a designated site for waste.
The development would have a significant negative impact on the future evaluation and exploration of the Roman Villa complex on the adjacent land and further recent archaeological work has exposed significant Iron Age activity of national importance in the immediate area of Villa Farm which should not be jeopardised. It would destroy the context and setting of the Roman Villa Scheduled Monument.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded raising objections to the information relating to archaeology which it is stated has major omissions and discrepancies in the data relied upon and that insufficient weight has been attached to the relevant archaeology in the neighbouring county of Nottinghamshire. Little weight should be attached to the
Page 58 conclusions reached in the updated Heritage Assessment and the Archaeological Evaluation Report insofar as the impact on setting is concerned.
The updated Heritage Assessment (2019) is stated to ignore many if not most of the entries on the Lincolnshire County Council’s Historic Environment Record, one of the most significant of which is evidence for iron-smelting near the site which may explain anomalies on the geophysics survey which are discounted as being modern. There is a lack of reference to archaeological features on the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record, including a very important relationship between Brills Farm, a defended Iron Age enclosure or hillfort with field systems and trackways stretching up to the development site, the Roman villa adjacent to the development site and the Roman settlement of Crococalana near present day Brough. When the A46 was dualled, its route was varied to avoid damage to this Roman settlement, which is not considered.
Work by the local archaeology group in the neighbouring fields resulted in evidence for iron-smelting stretching back to the Middle Iron Age, with indications that hearths may still be in situ. The nature of this discovery is thought to be unique in Lincolnshire and may be of national importance.
The Aerial Imagery Assessment is misleading as it has not considered all relevant aerial photographs and there are indications that the Roman villa complex was much larger than the schedule area and related features most probably extend into the development site itself.
The excavation of the villa in the 1930’s is exaggerated.
The development will completely ruin the setting in which these important heritage assets sit.
It will have a detrimental impact on the widely supported Lancaster Bomber memorial and the hugely important and highly valued social enterprise at Hill Holt Wood, as well as the woodland itself.
The proposal is completely inappropriate in a picturesque and locally valued landscape.
Also extremely concerned about the detrimental impact of huge lorries being driven through the village and the surrounding narrow roads which are unsuitable, at times when there is an accident on the A46 or A17.
(k) Caroline Johnson, MP – has been contacted by a large number of constituents raising objections on the following grounds. Concerns regarding odour from the facility itself and the delivery lorries. Of
Page 59 particular concern is the impact on children with special educational needs attending nearby schools, particularly those on the autistic spectrum, as they process sensory inputs differently and can be extremely affected by smell.
Concerns regarding traffic which would impact on traffic congestion and road safety in the local area, particularly where any access road would meet the A46. Roads are already extremely busy and adding so many HGV journeys would have a significant and lasting impact for residents, businesses and those passing or visiting the area.
This is a greenbelt site and concerned about impacts on the local environment. The large chimney and surrounding buildings would severely affect the surrounding landscape and have a large visual impact on the area. It could harm wildlife and biodiversity and there is considerable risk of polluting the waterways.
It would directly impact many local businesses and services, particularly in the hospitality and tourism industries, which would be most impacted by odour, including Hill Holt Wood (an excellent rehabilitation centre), Roman villa remains (Scheduled Monument), Lancaster Bomber memorial, and the Lost Village Festival (which brings thousands of pounds to the local economy).
Query why two facilities required given existing operation at Skellingthorpe and no need for more capacity in the industry.
It would impact on the lives and livelihoods of constituents extremely severely and irrevocably change the character of the area.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(l) Robert Jenrick, MP (adjoining) – object to the proposal. Has received numerous messages from constituents expressing serious grievances and a local petition has received more than 4,000 signatures online.
The additional 150 two-way HGV movement generated would severely impact the highway both within the immediately vicinity of the site and the wider area. It is shockingly dangerous to allow or expect fully loaded lorries to slow down in a 70mph flow of traffic to attempt to turn right from a standing start across the flow of traffic. Expect the number of fatalities in this location will increase if the plans go ahead. It is a notoriously dangerous junction. The result of turning traffic may be traffic queueing on the carriageway, creating an even greater hazard. Visibility is restricted by the contour of the road.
Page 60 There are nine villages which would be affected by odour, including the larger villages of Collingham and Witham St Hughs. Similar facilities are already operational in Nottinghamshire at Stoke Bardolph, Gedling and J G Pears at Low Marnham and these produce significant odours, even though they appear to operate within required environmental standards. The suggestion by the applicant that the odour would not be dispersed by delivery vehicles serving the site is not backed up by first-hand experience of locals. The applicant has described odour from the lorries as an insurmountable problem and the weakest link.
Waste water is bound to follow from these developments and would run into the Trent or Witham. Do not have faith in the applicant’s assurances that this is unlikely to happen, given their previous poor record at Skellingthorpe. Any potential accident would have severe, extensive and irreversible consequences.
Biodiversity is threatened by the proposals, including destruction of the local wildlife natural habitat at Hill Holt Wood. Lincolnshire is one of the least wooded counties in the UK at only 4%, with only 6,300 hectares of ancient semi-natural woodland, much of which lies at Hill Holt Wood. The location of the proposals next to Hill Holt Wood would go against the England Biodiversity Strategy (2011).
Potential for acid rain to be produced and emission of sulphur dioxide and ammonia. No satisfactory outline of waste management or power source has been provided.
The archaeological site at Villa Farm would be lost, containing Roman and Iron Age deposits that have not been fully explored. This is one of the most important Roman sites in the East Midlands and finds from the 1930s excavations are lodged in the British Museum.
Views of the proposed Lancaster Bomber memorial would be obstructed and dwarfed by the proposals. The applicant has admitted the visual impact would be severe.
The proposals do not fit with Local Plan Policy LP7 and local businesses indicate a shared belief that the outdoor economy would be hindered by the development. There is a vibrant, thriving rural economy based on hard work and dedication, including Hill Holt Wood (with particular reference to social consequences), Oakhill Leisure (with very specific concerns regarding odour in particular), holiday chalets, bed and breakfast accommodation, wedding venue, Lost Village Festival (which is well attended and contributed over £230,000 to the local economy in 2017) and the bi-annual British Eventing Norton Disney Horse Trials.
Traffic impacts when A46 is closed have a significant knock-on effect on local businesses.
Page 61 A residential school for autistic children is due to open in Spring 2018 catering for those with special needs in Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. Impact on people with autism due to many having sensory problems.
The reliance of the applicant on the NPPF to justify rural job creation is taken out of context and the perceived job-creation opportunities are illusory and are likely to have a negative impact on employment with over 200 job losses.
The Core Strategy and Development Management policy states that new waste infrastructure should be located away from greenfield sites and the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside should be recognised and protected. Refer to the Witham Valley Park Preservation Group representation for more information regarding violation of national planning policies.
There is no need for this development as the industry has spare capacity and the plant at Skellingthorpe will continue to operate. This would result in two rendering plants in close proximity with a third at J G Pears. Waste should be processed locally, yet the applicant has stated they plan to process national waste.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(m) Karl McCartney MP (adjoining) – the business was established at its current location in the early 20th century and is one of the largest employers within the Lincoln area, with a multi-million pound turnover. It uses a large number of local service providers within its supply chain as part of its “local first” ethos. It injects millions of pounds into the local economy through services, products and maintenance that it buys to serve its own production processes and business model. It has updated plant and machinery to address issues of odour and other areas of concern.
It was recently named as number one business for growth within its sector in the Lincolnshire area and third within the East Midlands as a whole. Not only is it an important employer and wealth generator, it provides its clients and suppliers with a service which is a valuable and essential need which needs to be protected. The business sector, including the farming fraternity in the wider County locale would be supportive of the business.
The business is in a period of growth and the multi-million pound development at Norton Disney is supported by a number of large businesses from across the country and region and is considered as having major improvement implication for the agricultural sector within Lincolnshire specifically. Have assisted the company to
Page 62 recover from an accidental fire which badly affected the operations and capacity in 2010/11, and the company worked with local Councils (North Kesteven District Council and Lincolnshire County Council) to ensure they made significant commitment and investment for the business to thrive and offer services to Lincolnshire agricultural sector clients and their own employees.
Worked with and for the company at various times over the past decade, and would be happy to do so in the future, and they have been supportive of me too. The company has invested tens of thousands of pounds in the planning application, providing further environmental information at the request of the planning authority, which underpins its commitment to the environment and the local area it operates in. The application has great merit, the applicants are sound and professional. Wholeheartedly support the application.
(n) Nottinghamshire County Council – request Lincolnshire County Council give very careful consideration to the potential environmental effects resulting from the development in respect to the following:
• road safety: highways advice should be sought to ensure that the Folly Lane junction with the A46 is of a satisfactory standard to accommodate the proposed traffic, in particular, road safety implications of large and slow moving HGVs utilising the A46 central reservation to turn into or exit from the site, including reference to accident reports;
• lorry routeing: if approved, lorry routeing controls should be regulated through a S.106 legal agreement to prevent delivery vehicles using network of rural roads in the vicinity of the site and to restrict HGV access at Potter Hill Road as a short cut to the A1133 through Collingham, which would be environmentally unacceptable;
• odour: acknowledge that the design of the proposed facility would incorporate odour control measures but seek assurances that the suggested controls would be effective. Experience of similar plants in Nottinghamshire shows the character of waste feedstocks and the rendering processes undertaken have the potential to release odour which could adversely affect surrounding properties, including properties within Nottinghamshire; and
• visual impact: request careful consideration is given to the landscape and visual impact of the development which incorporates extensive industrial development and would be located within a rural location which is predominantly open in character.
Page 63 Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to restate previous objections, the potential environmental effects and emphasised the highway concerns regarding the access to the site and road safety implications of large, slow moving HGVs utilising the A46 central reservation to turn into or exit the site. Also emphasise the previous concerns regarding wider routeing of the delivery vehicles along village roads and the A1133 through Collingham.
(o) Newark and Sherwood District Council - raised initially queries regarding how odour from lorries travelling through residential areas will be controlled, what the precise routes of lorries are and whether the routeing of lorries could be controlled and successfully enforced.
In relation to the reconsultation on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted responded that the revisions are minimal in the context of the scheme as a whole and previous comments still apply.
A proposal of this scale and industrial nature would be highly visible and would cause significant harm to the character of the open countryside, and should be refused on this basis. Furthermore, less than substantial harm would be caused to the setting of various heritage assets within the wider context. Comments from the Conservation Officer are included and the objection from Historic England is noted.
On the Newark side of the County boundary, there are various heritage assets at Brough, and in the wider area, Collingham, Winthorpe, Coddington and Newark itself (encapsulated by conservation area boundaries). The A46 is an important gateway into the District, and due to its historic role as a Roman road, a significant thoroughfare from which to enjoy and experience the historic environment.
Regard must be had to section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, to the NPPF, the Council’s LDF Core Strategy and Site Allocations DPDs and Notes 2 and 3 of the Historic Environment Good Practice Advice in Planning. Refer to the definition of “setting” in the NPPF, noting that setting relates to the experience of the heritage asset and does not depend on only visual considerations or require there to be public right or an ability to assess or experience that setting. Also notes the NPPF requirements to provide clear and convincing justification for any harm. Need to consider implications of cumulative change when assessing impacts on heritage assets and whether additional change will further detract from, or enhance, the significance of the asset.
There is the grade II listed Church of St Stephen and grade II listed Coltons Farmhouse in Brough; Grade II* listed Langford Hall close to
Page 64 the A46; and Collingham Hall, Collingham Station and Crossing Cottage are within 2.5 km and grade II listed.
There is considerable archaeological significance in the wider landscape here. Crococalana (at Brough) is thought to be a significant Romano-British settlement. Considerable detail regarding the historic context, relationship between settlements and the Fosse Way is provided, including references to the Roman villa at Norton Disney.
Accept that the distance from the proposal site to the designated heritage assets within Newark and Sherwood is significant (2km or more) and the proposal is not considered to have a significant impact. Existing landscaping between the proposal site and Coltons Farm and other heritage assets in Brough and Collingham ensure that the proposal will not be unduly prominent from key receptors in and around those assets, and recognise that the landscaping proposals and use of green cladding will help reduce visual impact. However, the proposal will be a significant landscape feature, and by virtue of its scale and form, an obtrusive element when viewed from the A46. This is highlighted in the submitted landscape photo montages. This roadway is an important processual route between Lincoln and Newark, and as a former Roman road, an important means of experiencing the historic landscape. There is also the opportunity for incidental views of the composite stack from footpaths, roadways and other elements of the historic environment further than 2km of the proposal site. In this context, consider there will be some limited adverse landscape impact on the wider setting of heritage assets at Brough and Collingham. However, such harm is limited, and is less than substantial for the purposes of the NPPF.
Report that Nottinghamshire County Council Highways stated that the proposal would have much more effect on Lincolnshire’s and Highways England’s road network than Nottinghamshire’s. However, in line with other local agreements, recommend a S.106 agreement covering lorry routeing should be applied to avoid the A1133 through Collingham being used. It should be noted that there is an overnight (7pm to 7am) lorry ban on the A1133 at Girton.
The Environmental Health Officer has considered the Air Quality Impact Assessment and concurs with the assessment that impacts would be negligible.
Also includes details of representations made by Collingham Parish Council (as reported earlier in this report).
In conclusion, object on the basis it would cause significant harm to the character of the open countryside, less than substantial harm to heritage assets in the surrounding area and would be contrary to the NPPF.
Page 65 (p) Environment Agency – no objection.
Further to a specific request from the case officer, provided further advice regarding surface and foul water drainage.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to state that the information was not requested by the Environment Agency, it has not been reviewed in details and no comments are made on it. Refer to previous responses.
Note that the proposed system for the discharge of foul sewage is likely to require a permit under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations (2016) and would wish to see comprehensive foul drainage details in order to permit any discharges to the environment.
(q) Natural England – no comments on application. Refer to the use of standing advice regarding protected species and ancient woodland and veteran trees.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and stated no comments, noting that no assessments had been undertaken in relation to protected species and that the lack of comment does not imply no impacts on the natural environment, but only that the application is not likely to result in significant impacts on statutory designated nature conservation sites or landscapes.
(r) Historic England – has concerns regarding the application on heritage grounds. There is insufficient information in respect of the significance of historic assets and the impact of the development upon that significance for the application to be determined.
The site sits in a setting relationship with Norton Disney Roman Villa West of Hill Holt Farm, a Scheduled Monument designated on the basis of national archaeological importance. The extent, significance and importance of archaeological remains are key to the assessment of the impacts of the development and Historic England’s advice.
Note the material submitted and understand additional material is in preparation and anticipate will be reconsulted when this is submitted.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded stating that the development would through setting impacts harm the significance of the Roman Villa west of Hill Holt Farm; a scheduled monument designated by the Secretary of State on the basis of its national importance, Historic England objects to the application on heritage grounds.
Page 66 The principal designated asset affected by the development is the scheduled Roman Villa partially excavated in the 1930’s by Smith and Oswald (NHLE 1005018, LI 81) the Roman Villa West of Hill Holt Farm. The monument lies in fields to the east side of the Roman Fosse Way set on rising ground between the Roman settlement at Brough and the Roman City at Lincoln (Lindum). This relationship is well illustrated by the antiquarian William Stukeley, in his view of 1722 looking from Potter Hill close to the site where the villa was later discovered.
Geophysical survey work carried out for the applicants indicate that the villa site itself occupies a larger area than that protected by scheduling. The remains of demonstrably equivalent archaeological importance (see NPPF footnote 63) can be seen as occupying roughly the modern field containing the scheduled area to the north side of Folly Lane. To the south side of Folly Lane lie the remains of the Roman track giving access to the villa site, as identified from the recent programme of trial trenching. This feature continues the line of North Scaffold Lane (marked ‘Roman Road’ on the Ordnance Survey) extending to the west side of the A46 Fosse Way), this feature appears intimately associated with the villa itself.
At present the monument sits in an historic landscape and archaeological context in which the most prominent feature is the Fosse Way / A46 the Roman Road which for all its modernisation still articulates the context of the monument climbing the escarpment on route between the Roman settlements at Brough and Lincoln. The existing pattern of Folly Lane and the fields to either side represents the layering of medieval and enclosure period divisions onto an underlying Roman and Iron-Age landscape. Once one knows the Villa is there, one can orient oneself with this underlying landscape context.
Finds of Bronze Age metal work and Iron Age boundary features suggest the Roman Fosse Way was set out through a landscape already divided and marked by political relationships. The Iron Age Settlement at Brills Farm is an undesignated heritage asset lying to the south-west of the Villa and extending into the proposed development area as demonstrated in the submitted geophysical survey and trial trenching work carried out. The Iron Age settlement provides the evidence of the landscape of farming and land tenure into which the Roman Villa was introduced. In trying to understand how these landscapes changed through the Roman period we need to think about the relationships between people and landscape that were established in the Iron Age. The Iron Age settlement remains within and beyond the development site thus make a direct contribution to the significance of the Villa as setting.
The mound shown by Stukeley as Potter Hill on the line of the Fosse and the break in topography and the associated place names
Page 67 (Scaffold) may point to early medieval burial and perhaps reuse as a place of execution in a liminal location also reflected in the pattern of administrative boundaries.
The proposed development includes access works and a lit lorry yard which would break across this archaeologically identified route to the Villa. The proposed 35m stack would be visible both from the monument and from the Roman site at Brough and this stack would become the prominent feature in association with the scheduled site. Whilst the existing tree cover and proposed planting would to a degree provide screening for the processing sheds from the Villa they would remain visible both from the monument and in views from the south in addition to the stack. The proposed development would separate the Villa site from the Iron Age settlement and reduce one’s ability to appreciate and explore this relationship in the present.
The scheme was subject to pre-application discussions which covered the scope of necessary investigations and information but this dialogue was ultimately overtaken by the submission of the application to your authority. In our advice letter of 12th June 2018 the additional material necessary was set out, to sufficiently understand the significance of heritage assets and the impacts of development.
Whilst the submitted material to date provides a number of key documents In particular the results of archaeological trial trenching and geophysical survey (including the overlay of the 1930’s excavation plans to the geophysics), it is noted that more detail could have been provided on the archaeological landscape setting of the monument. This detail might for example have included Historic Environment Record Data over the County boundary in Nottinghamshire in addition to that from Lincolnshire and further attention to the relationship of the Roman settlement to earlier remains.
Notwithstanding the above issues regarding information, it is considered the proposed development would be harmful to the significance of the Scheduled Roman Villa at Norton Disney a monument designated by the Secretary of State on the basis of its national importance. The prominence of the new structures in particular the stack and the lorry park, the access arrangements, lighting, infrastructure and activity would disassociate the monument from the Roman Fosse Way by cutting across the historic access line and would further tend to separate the Villa site from the remains of Iron Age settlement on the development site and out to Brills Farm. This would harm the appreciation and understanding of the monument in its historic landscape setting.
All harm to designated heritage assets requires clear and convincing justification and must be set against public benefits with great weight
Page 68 applied to the conservation of the asset’s significance. Scheduled Monuments are in the upper tier of designated heritage assets as grouped in the NPPF and as such there is greater weight that must be applied in making any balance. The scheme is evidently harmful to the significance of the Scheduled Monument on the basis of its setting impact and as such the policies set out in paragraphs 192, 193, 194 and 196 apply (alongside footnote 63 as regards those parts of the villa extending beyond the scheduled area).
In exploring the impact upon the monument’s significance of the development in a rigorous manner reference can be made to Historic England’s published advice on Setting of Heritage Assets (GPA3). On the topic of ‘significance’ in decision-making the Government’s Planning Practice Guidance (paragraph 007 and 008) sets out that ‘Heritage assets may be affected by direct physical change or by change in their setting.’ and advocates early appraisals to understand these issues. The submitted assessments do not appear to include a clear and convincing justification for harm deriving at a basic level of site selection.
Historic England has assessed this application with regard to heritage matters and believe, it will result in harm to the significance of the designated heritage asset identified. Attention has been drawn to relevant policy which makes it very clear that when considering the impact on the scheduled monument’s significance, all harm requires clear and convincing justification and great weight shall be placed on the side of the asset’s conservation when setting that impact against any public benefits. It will be for your authority to determine whether the points raised by the applicant meet the requirements of the relevant NPPF policies, including the location proposed and whether there are alternative ways in which the proposal could be delivered.
Historic England objects to the application on heritage grounds. It is considered that the application does not meet the requirements of the NPPF, in particular paragraph numbers 192, 193, 194 and 196.
In determining this application you should bear in mind the statutory duty of section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 to determine planning applications in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Your authority should take these representations into account in determining the application.
(s) Highways England – the proposed development is unlikely to result in a significant material impact on the performance of the strategic road network in the area (i.e. the A46 Trunk Road) in terms of traffic. However, have identified issues relating to the drainage strategy and boundary treatment.
Page 69 The drainage proposals in the northern section, i.e. Lorry Park, appears to discharge to the existing ditch which in turn connects to Highways England’s drainage system. This is not acceptable in line with Highways England’s policy (paragraph 40 of the Department for Transport’s Circular 02/2013). Recommend a planning condition requiring submission and approval of a suitable drainage strategy.
Recommend two planning conditions relating to fencing as Highways England is required to consider all hazards to the road user within 15 metres of the edge of the strategic road network’s carriageway white line, with no steel or concrete fence posts, large timber posts, non- passively safe metal posts, plants with a full grown girth of 250mm or more or any other hazards within this zone. In addition, concern is raised regarding the potential to dazzle and confuse traffic on both sides of the A46 Trunk Road during both construction and operational phases (particularly from the Clean Lorry Carpark) and request that anti-dazzle fencing or a suitable alternative, should be installed as necessary.
Following correspondence in which a series of specific queries were raised regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the A46 and the Folly Lane junction, Highways England provided the following further comments:
The consultation has been reviewed, including attending a site visit and seeking further advice from specialist planning consultants. The outcome is that although the A46 / Potter Hill Road junction has experienced some accidents, there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development increasing vehicle movements at the A46 / Folly Lane junction would mean an increase in accidents at this junction – this is a perceived risk. Additionally, the trips at the two junctions are / would be significantly different; as the Potter Hill junction serves a much bigger residential area, and the Folly Lane junction is likely to be used by less than 100 dwellings, a farm and a quarry.
Due to the parameters of the six tests within the planning system, would be unable to stipulate any planning conditions as the current risks identified are perceived and not based on any traffic modelling or significant safety evidence. On this basis, the original response remains as a condition cannot be imposed where there is no justification.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to state that the proposed development is unlikely to result in a material impact on the performance of the A46 in terms of traffic. The revised Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy suitably addresses comments previously raised in relation to drainage.
Page 70 The proposed 2.4 metre high metal paladin fence as a safety and security boundary is acceptable and suitably addresses previous concerns. The applicant has confirmed no landscaping is proposed to be removed along the A46 boundary and that a 2 metre high close boarded timber fence is proposed. This addresses the previous concerns regarding boundary treatment and dazzle implications.
Recommend the imposition of two conditions if planning permission is granted, securing the measures set out in the revised Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy and the boundary treatment in accordance with the submitted landscaping / Bat Mitigation Plan.
(t) Animal and Plant Health Agency – at the time of writing this report, no comments received, including following reconsultation on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted.
(u) North Kesteven Environmental Health – please see comments below from North Kesteven District Council.
(v) Historic Places (Lincolnshire County Council) – the applicant has commissioned an archaeological field evaluation, the results of which have not yet been seen. A formal and definitive response cannot be provided until this information has been submitted but raise the following points at this stage.
Question the statement that “setting provides very limited contribution to the … significance of the designated heritage asset”. The Roman villa is situated just off the brow of a hill which rises above and to the north of the Roman town of Crococalana in the hamlet now known as Brough. Between the two runs the Fosse Way, the Roman road on the line of the present day A46, and a lane appears to have possibly linked the villa to the road. It seems that setting contributed to the choice of location for this villa and knowledge of this history can help to appreciate the villa in its wider landscape. These features can, to a greater or lesser extent, still be read in the modern landscape. The proposed development would be located between the site of the villa and the Roman town. This would inevitably have an impact upon this connection. Considering the Iron Age archaeology in the area and the indication of the continuity of occupation from the pre-Roman period there is a landscape of some time-depth which the development would make a harmful impact upon. The pre-Roman archaeology contributes to the archaeological landscape which is a significant heritage asset beyond merely the known remains of the Roman villa.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to state the planning application would have the effect of erecting an industrial plant in a landscape which can be characterised as rural and agricultural in form. This landscape also contains a time depth reflected in the presence of a
Page 71 number of significant heritage assets. The development of an animal rendering plant which will need considerable servicing by road vehicles will be harmful to the historic, rural landscape.
The proposed development is in a rural geographical location situated between Lincoln and Newark adjacent to the line of the Roman road known as the Fosse Way (now the A46). It is clear that there are significant heritage assets the setting of which would be affected by this development should it be permitted. Concerns about the development's potential impact were set out at an early stage and the applicant has sought to address these by undertaking a number of pieces of work. This work includes desk-based assessments, geophysical surveys and field evaluations by trial trench excavation.
These pieces of work are useful but fall short in a number of aspects. In particular the Updated Heritage Assessment, dated 30 September 2019, does not address the importance of the work undertaken when the A46 was widened (report by TPAU dated March 2002) or when a gas pipeline was installed. This previous archaeological work has shown that there is an historic persistence to the boundary which is still the border between the counties of Nottinghamshire and Lincolnshire. This lack of in-depth research also means that the landscape feature known as Gallows Nooking Common has also been overlooked. The applicant's documents also fail to take account of more recent research undertaken in the area and no additional search of the Historic Environment Record has been made. This means that the discoveries of additional evidence of Iron Age occupation made in the last two years by local amateur archaeologists have not been considered. The reference made by Stukeley in 1728 to 'Potter Hill' is also overlooked despite the fact that this indicates a long-standing landscape feature which appears to be in the immediate vicinity of the development proposal. The text describing Stukeley's drawing refers to the view towards Newark and the Roman settlement of Crococalana (Brough).
The key heritage asset that would be affected by the development proposal is the site of the Roman villa to the north-east of Folly Lane. This monument is scheduled as an Ancient Monument due to its national importance for the evidence it contains of rural life in the Roman period (NHLE ref 1005018 – Roman villa W of Hill Holt Farm). The site was partially excavated in the 1930s by Smith and Oswald although never fully written up. It is clear that the area of the scheduled monument does not accurately reflect the full extent of the villa site as known from its archaeological remains as identified on the geophysical survey commissioned by the applicant. What is of particular interest is the extent of evidence for occupation which appears to pre-date the Roman use of this land. At Brill's Farm, directly south of the Roman villa site, there is strong evidence of surviving features of Iron Age date and there is some suggestion that evidence recently collected (including by Banks Newton Heritage on
Page 72 behalf of the Bomber Gateway Trust) may indicate iron making in the Middle and Late Iron Age. Immediately to the west of the site is the Roman Fosse Way and the evidence suggests that a branch road linking the villa to the Roman road and beyond runs through the development site.
All this evidence indicates that the application is for a piece of land within a landscape with considerable time-depth. The NPPF requires 'local planning authorities to …assess the particular significance of any heritage asset that may be affected by a proposal'. Policy DM 4 of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan requires that a proposal with the potential to impact upon heritage assets to 'be accompanied by an assessment of the significance of the assets and the potential impact of the development proposal on those assets and their settings'. The policy also requires that 'the assessment should include details of the proposed mitigation measures that would be implemented'.
The applicant has not adequately assessed the impact of the proposal upon heritage assets or their settings. Some of the important aspects of the historic environment which have been overlooked contribute to the understanding of this place and its occupation throughout the Iron Age and Roman periods. The failure to adequately assess these factors leads to a clear down-playing of the value of the historic environment.
The setting of the heritage assets in this case is of particularly significance. The development proposal if implemented would stand between the Roman villa and the sites at Brough, the Roman town of Crococalana (scheduled monument ref 1003479 Crococalana Roman town) and the remains at Brill's Farm. This means the legibility of the nationally important monument in its landscape setting would be impeded. Setting is not just about views but is about the experience of place. One's experience of heritage assets can be affected by noise or light or other polluting impacts. Regardless of the intervisibility or not there is an inter-relationship between the Roman town and the villa site which the development would harm.
The effect this development would have of detaching the Roman villa from its immediate setting is harmful. This harm is evident in three key ways:
• by changing the character of the rural and historic landscape,
• by being imposed in key views between the villa site and both Crococalana and pre-Roman sites in the immediate surroundings, and,
• by having a direct impact upon archaeological remains which are part of the context of the designated heritage asset.
Page 73 The NPPF requires local planning authorities to give great weight to the conservation of designated assets affected by development proposals (paragraph 193). The level of harm this development would cause to heritage assets which are both designated and undesignated is less than substantial harm. However, the likely impact is great and the level of harm is unacceptable. In its failure to address the requirements of the NPPF for development affecting the historic environment this proposal should not be permitted.
(w) Highways (Lincolnshire County Council) – request the inclusion of a legal agreement to carry out the works to improve the highway by means of widening Folly Lane from the A46 to the site access.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(x) Arboricultural Officer (Lincolnshire County Council) – at the time of writing this report, no comments received, including following reconsultation on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted.
(y) Planning Policy and Compliance Manager (Lincolnshire County Council) – following the receipt of the further information submitted, responded to object as the proposed development and details submitted do not meet any of the criteria in policy M11 of the CSDMP.
(z) Public Health (Lincolnshire County Council) – odours, air quality and noise are considered to be the most significant nuisances that will arise from the site. Transport of livestock will affect local air quality. Storage and containment systems for animal by-products will need to be designed to prevent odour nuisance. Any ancillary operations such as an effluent treatment plant or rendering unit will need proper controls.
There is potential for negative health impacts both by disease (due to a poorly designed or managed process) and psychological distress caused by the process itself. Both issues need careful consideration having due regard to the closeness to neighbours. One neighbour is Hill Holt Wood which has objected due to impacts on people with an autistic spectrum disorder. Many people with an autistic spectrum disorder have difficulty processing everyday sensory information such as sounds, sights and smells and this can affect behaviour and have a profound effect on a person’s life. The National Autistic Society’s website states that noise can be magnified and sounds become distorted and muddled; inability to cut out sounds, notably background noise; and smells can be intense and overpowering.
Page 74 Witham Prospect School is a newly established care and education facility, including living accommodation, for children with severe and profound learning disabilities and whom may also be on the autistic spectrum, so there may be similar issues arising for the school if noise and smells are prevalent.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(aa) Public Health England – responded to a specific query raised regarding potential impacts of the proposed development on young people at Hill Holt Wood with Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Individuals with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder may exhibit a heightened acuity of their senses including olfactory and auditory perception. The main emissions of concern from the proposal are to air including noise and odour. This response focuses on odour and recommends that the noise specialist Environmental Health Officer is consulted in relation to noise as they might consider the site working 24 hours a day for 5.5 days a week to be unsuitable during the night time.
Hill Holt Wood lies north east of the proposed development with the processing buildings located approximately 550 metres away. Both the noise and odour reports state that the predominant wind direction is south westerly and therefore Hill Holt Wood is located downwind of the proposed development for a large proportion of the year.
It is stated that the biofilters are able to reduce process odours to 1,500 OUE/m3 which corresponds to a mid-range biofilter emission value as considered in the SNIFFER guidance. When the typical flow rates of the filters and stack heights were considered, the highest predicted odour concentration at Hill Holt Wood was 0.64 OUE/m3 which is considered a “slight” impact. It is also noted that the modelling predicts there will be no exceedance of the 1.5 OUE/m3 benchmark for offensive odours at and around the site boundary. IAQM guidance states that impacts that are predicted to cause more than a “slight” impact may be considered significant and therefore require a further appraisal of potential consequences and further proposals of mitigation.
The developer has made reference to UK Water Industry Research (UWIR) guidance that had looked into the associations of modelled odour impacts from the wastewater industry and human health impacts. Based on the modelled 98th percentile of hourly mean concentrations of odour, the UWIR research indicates that at below 5.0 OUE/m3 complaints are relatively rare, at only 3% of the total registered, however it is unknown over what time frame this “rare”
Page 75 frequency applies, and is applied to the general population and not vulnerable adults.
Cannot comment at this stage on whether adequate site controls and mitigation are in place to reduce odour generation as far as practicable and minimising impacts from abnormal events, as there is currently no odour management plan. Further information may also be forthcoming in an environmental permit application.
Technical guidance to the NPPF mentions vulnerable receptors in assessing the appropriateness of siting developments near elderly homes or hospitals but could not locate any relevant guidance referring to the assessment of odour from proposed developments on receptors with heightened sensory perception (including those with an autistic condition). The IAQM publication “Guidance on the assessment of odour for planning” describes high receptor sensitivity as being residential dwellings and public establishments that may host vulnerable populations (e.g. hospitals and schools). It is likely that this category may also be relevant in part to those individuals with significant needs (including autistic spectrum disorder).
The predicted concentration at Hill Holt Wood is noted to correspond to attracting a “rare” frequency of residential complaints. Some planning (including technical) guidance does consider residential dwellings, hospitals and schools (i.e. establishments which may cater for those with severe medical and / or educational needs) when siting developments, however, no relevant information could be located that considers the impact of various nuisances on those receptors that have autistic spectrum disorders or other conditions where sensory perception is significantly affected. The absence of guidance and aforementioned lack of various risk assessments does not permit adequate conclusions to be drawn in this regard. Working times regarding odour may wish to be considered as per noise.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and sent two responses, including one as a direct result of further queries having been raised by the case officer.
The main issues of potential concern are emissions to air of products of combustion (associated with boilers and thermal oxidisers) and nuisance noise and odour. Public Health England support the recommendations in relation to dust and air mitigation measures. The applicant’s assessment of emissions to air predicted maximum ground-level concentrations of products of combustion would not exceed short or long-term air quality standards. Process controls will be required (and specified within any environmental permit) to ensure that thermal oxidisers operate effectively, including at start-up and shut-down.
Page 76 The planning authority may wish to confirm that emissions of carbon monoxide (not detailed in the assessment) were screened as insignificant.
The preferred stack height of 35 metres will be associated with lower ground-level concentrations. Reducing public exposures to non- threshold pollutants below air quality standards has potential public health benefits. Support approaches which minimise or mitigate public exposure to non-threshold air pollutants and address inequalities and encourage their consideration during site design, operational management and regulation.
To provide further reassurance, emission limits used in the study could be specified in any environmental permit and validated using quantitative measurements should the site become operational.
The applicant’s odour assessment indicates that odorous emissions, that are worst-case, will not exceed odour benchmarks set by the Environment Agency.
To provide further reassurance, emission rate assumptions used in the study and predicted off-site odour levels could be validated using quantitative on and off-site odour measurements should the site become operational.
Support suggestion in Odour Management Plan to hold meetings with stakeholders every quarter to review performance and address any issues.
The planning authority may wish to clarify the nature of the plans for regular liaison meetings with local residents to ensure local residents and others nearby are represented.
The Clinical Psychology Assessment Report concludes it is unlikely the development will have adverse effects on learners, it contains recommendations for local educational facilities and specifically recommends liaison between Hill Holt Wood and the applicant regarding any odour concerns.
If people are present at Hill Holt Wood at night-time, the planning authority may wish to seek a view on the need for further noise mitigation from the environmental health officer.
In order to operate an environmental permit will be required to demonstrate that the installation is compliant with Best Available Technology and will not lead to adverse effects off-site.
Odour benchmark aim to protect the majority of the population, but there is a wide distribution of odour sensitivities, and even when compliance with odour benchmarks is achieved, some individuals
Page 77 may be more likely to detect odour more frequently or intensely than others. Nuisance smells are required to be controlled by any environmental permit to operate.
Public Health England’s response focuses on potential environmental exposures to chemicals associated with emissions to air, water and land and seek assurances that nuisance issues and accidents are considered and addressed. In terms of exposures to environmental chemicals and associated toxicological effects, the environmental standards used in this application are appropriate and not predicted to be exceeded. However, the human nose is very sensitive to odours and many substances that are perceived as odorous are usually present at levels below which there is a direct toxicological effect. Odours can cause nuisance amongst the population possibly leading to stress and anxiety. Some people may experience symptoms as a reaction to odours even when the substances that cause those smells are themselves not harmful to health. It cannot be excluded that some symptoms presented may be subjective.
Public Health England cannot assess the effects and responses of people with Autistic Spectrum Disorders or learning difficulties to odour, so it is appropriate to consider specialist advice. The Clinical Psychology Assessment Report acknowledges areas of uncertainty and concludes that it cannot be concluded that odour issues would impede or disrupt learners at Hill Holt Wood. If a second opinion is required, the planning authority could request a peer review by third- party experts. The recommendation for specific liaison between the site and affected premises to address any odour concerns on a case by case basis is reiterated in the previous response.
(bb) Ministry of Defence Safeguarding – no safeguarding objections.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(cc) Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust – site not near land owned or managed by the Trust or within one of the Living Landscapes for Greater Lincolnshire. It is not on or near a statutory designated site for nature conservation.
It is however, within the vicinity of, but not on, several Lincolnshire Local Wildlife Sites (LWS) being Hill Holt Wood, Hawdin’s Wood, Norton Big Wood and Stapleford Moor. These LWSs are predominantly meeting a variety of criteria for ancient woodland, semi-natural woodland, plantation and heath and natural grassland, including wet areas. The site sits between the first three of the LWSs and Stapleford Moor. These sites, particularly those of ancient woodland quality, will provide for protected species, such as bats.
Page 78 A diverse range of bat species have been identified within the submitted ecological surveys but at present additional surveys have not been reported. The Trust highlights and supports the comments made in this regard by the Lincolnshire Bat Group (see below). It is critical these surveys be completed and reported on, and that key stakeholders get to review and comment on these when available. From these surveys it is likely that further light and noise pollution mitigation measures will have to be agreed as some of the species listed are highly sensitive to these forms of pollution. The two relevant county Bat Groups are best placed to provide such expertise, but request the Trust is involved as can help inform on species required for mitigation planting and biodiversity gains.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to state that the two relevant Bat Groups are best placed to provide expert advice on appropriate bat survey methodology and mitigation for bats in this location, especially given Nottinghamshire Bat Group’s detailed work in the area. Have consulted Lincolnshire Bat Group and highlight the observations made and support the advice given in Nottinghamshire Bat Group’s latest comment.
Welcome the installation of the taller (35 metre) stack in comparison to the 25 metre stack due to the significant reduction of SO2, NOX and particulate levels modelled at receptor locations.
Do not see any investigation of potential ammonia release and its environmental impact and request information accordingly.
Request further consideration is given to measures that could mitigate levels of local nitrogen deposition resulting from the operations of the proposed facility, such as increased tree planting at the site, shelter belt design and high velocity ventilation fans in the context of best available technologies / techniques.
At Hill Holt Wood there is a background deposition rate average of 36.4 kg N/h/year (based on data 2015-17) compared to a critical load range of 10 – 20 kg N/ha/year for broadleaved deciduous woodland, above which deleterious effects on plants and habitat quality are expected. There is an exceedance rate of 26.4 to 16.4 kg N/ha/year and it should be borne in mind that the development would add to this for the adjacent Local Wildlife Site woodland.
Refer to NPPF paragraph 170 and hope that maximum effort would be undertaken by condition to establish the most effective tree shelterbelt, if permission is granted. Insist that a tree belt encircle the site as completely as possible with most tree planting being down wind of the prevailing wind direction (to the north-east). Further details of tree planting is provided.
Page 79 Support the proposed planting / sowing of native species and retention of as many trees as possible in the Bat Mitigation Plan drawing.
Strongly feel that planting of trees in an appropriate design offers the opportunity to create screening for air pollution, noise and light spill for surrounding habitat in addition to improved habitat creativity via its boundaries for feeding and commuting bats. Contend that landscape design and planting plans on the site should be more focussed on mitigating effects on surrounding habitat than trying to create habitat on the site and provide details of appropriate planting.
(dd) The Coal Authority – no observations.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and restated no observations.
(ee) National Grid / Cadent Gas – object as there is apparatus in the vicinity of the enquiry site which may be affected by the activities specified. A high pressure gas pipeline runs through the site and associated equipment have been identified. Roadways for lorries cross the pipeline and car parks are proposed over it. Request to be notified of likely outcome of the application at the earliest opportunity.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and stated that object to the proposals due to a high pressure gas pipeline running top to bottom through the site. The plans show lorries and roadways crossing the high pressure gas pipeline.
Hold a deed of grant for an easement effectively 6 metres each side of the high pressure gas pipeline.
If the applicant can demonstrate how the asset will be protected and respect the easements, the objection would be withdrawn.
Following discussions between the applicant and agent, subsequently submitted a representation removing the previous objection.
(ff) Anglian Water – following having been reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information, responded to state that no assets owned by Anglian Water , or those subject to an adoption agreement, within the site boundary. Foul drainage is in the catchment of Bassingham Water Recycling centre which currently does not have capacity to treat flows from the site but Anglian Water are obligated to accept foul flows from development with planning consent and take necessary steps to ensure there is sufficient treatment capacity.
Page 80 Although outside remit, and the views of the Environment Agency should be sought, request that details of foul water strategy is reflected in the planning approval.
Preference for use of sustainable drainage system and advise seeking views of Lead Local Flood Authority or Internal Drainage Board. If surface water management changes to involve Anglian Water assets, would wish to be reconsulted.
Request informative be added to decision notice if planning permission granted regarding discharge of trade effluent.
(gg) Heritage Trust Lincolnshire – at the time of writing this report, no comments received, including following reconsultation on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted.
(hh) National Planning Casework Unit – no comments on the Environmental Statement.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(ii) Trent Valley Internal Drainage Board – the Board’s consent is required for any works that increase the flow or volume of water to any watercourse or culvert. Surface water run-off rates to receiving watercourses must not be increased as a result of the development. The design, operation and future maintenance of site drainage systems must be agreed with the Lead Local Flood Authority and Local Planning Authority.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded restating the original comments.
38. The application has been publicised by two site notices and in the local press (Lincolnshire Echo on 31 May 2018) and letters of notification were sent to the nearest neighbouring residents.
39. As a result of this publicity and notification and in addition to the above consultees, representations were also received from the following:
(i) Winthorpe with Langford Parish Council – this is too near to Winthorpe and Langford and a number of other villages in the Newark and Sherwood District. There is another rendering factory at Skellingthorpe, known locally as “Smelly Skelly” which is why this Parish Council object to this application. Query why the existing plant still has this reputation. The obnoxious odour can make the public’s life a misery. Concerns regarding the odour from vehicles transporting material to the site. Concerns regarding noise from the
Page 81 plant and from delivery vehicles as working 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Any material generated from the rendering process must be correctly disposed of so as not to create an obnoxious odour.
The site is within the open countryside and the proposed size means that it is large with high structures making it very obvious, question whether it could be located in a less intrusive area and further away from residential, office and work environments. Accessing and exiting the site via the A46 may cause problems to other traffic on the A46 and may cause an accident, causing a great deal of confusion and delays, as happened recently leading to 50mph signs being put up on that particular stretch of the road.
The site may be in the flood area, being near the River Trent.
Norton Disney is an attractive village with a very popular pub / restaurant the “Green Man” and a number of events taking place on a county scale, if not national scale, and it would be a great pity if these events were seriously affected.
It is completely the wrong area and should be built in a few buildings near the coast with the prevailing south westerly wind behind the factory blowing any obnoxious odours out to sea away from dwellings.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(ii) Aubourn and Haddington Parish Council – have supported the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan and consider the proposals are in contravention of the following policies: LP2, LP4, LP7, LP13, LP18, LP25 and LP55. Currently used as the “southern bypass” for cars and HGVs being the cut-through from the A46 to the A607 and A15, if this is granted, traffic will increase. “C” class roads are already being eroded by the number and weight of heavy vehicles and the quality of life of those residents whose dwellings abut the road is diminished.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(iii) Brant Broughton and Stragglethorpe Parish Council – all traffic travelling to and from the site should be directed to use the main “A” roads (A17, A46, A15, A607 etc) and not use minor roads. The minor rural roads are not designed to take HGV traffic which ruins the sides of these roads causing large potholes which Lincolnshire County Council take a long time to repair.
Page 82
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted, however, no further comments received at the time of writing this report.
(iv) Thorpe on the Hill Parish Council – strongly object to the application. The Parish Council supports and agrees with the comments of Witham St Hughs Parish Council. The main objections relate to emissions from the site and their impacts on the parish and residents; the proposed traffic access and high probability of serious or fatal road accidents crossing a dual carriageway with fully laden lorries; visual impact on the main entrance road to historic Lincoln; and so close to developing areas. If approval is recommended it should be referred to full planning committee.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to object and reiterate previous comments.
(v) North Scarle Parish Council – object for a number of reasons. Slow moving vehicles from the site would be joining fast moving traffic on the A46 at a very hazardous junction. The delivery of products into the site is a potential health hazard. The buildings will be overpowering industrial structures and a blot on the beautiful landscape. It should not be built as a backdrop to the recently approved Lancaster Bomber memorial.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded stating objection to the application due to factory traffic using cross-country routes at night when the A1133 is closed for access; and restating the previously made objections.
(vi) Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue (Lincolnshire County Council) – object to the application on the grounds of inadequate access and water supplies. Provide details of how the objection could be overcome.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to confirm that on the basis of the further information, the proposal would meet the requirements of the Building Regulations 2010 and therefore withdraw the objection.
(vii) Nottinghamshire Bat Group – object to the proposed development. Nottinghamshire Bat Group has undertaken several bat surveys within the surrounding area of the development site (at Hill Holt Wood and Norton Big Wood) since 2015 and during the course of these surveys 11 of the 12 bat species known to be present in the East Midlands region have been recorded within 1km, including a colony of the very rare barbastelle Barbastella barbastellus. All British bat species and their habitats are protected by UK and EU law; however, the Barbastelle is afforded legal protection above most other European bat species. It is one of the UK’s rarest mammals and has
Page 83 recently been declared one of the 12 British mammal species most threatened with national extinction, and in a wider context, the International Union for Conservation of Nature has “red listed” the species as “near threatened” due to a fragmenting and declining population across most of its international range, primarily caused by habitat loss. There are very few known Barbastelle breeding sites in the UK and it is undoubtedly the bat species of highest conservation concern in the East Midlands, which is at the northern extent of its known UK range. It is listed as a priority species for conservation in Lincolnshire and the colony recorded within 1km of the proposed development is one of only two known within or bordering Nottinghamshire. This breeding colony occupies at least 11 roosts within a 7km radius of this proposed development, including maternity roosts within 1km of it. The proposed development will be located within the very core sustenance zone for this Barbastelle colony and is highly likely to result in adverse effects on the core habitat, for example, due to additional intrusive lighting and the disruption or severance of key flight-lines when natural habitats such as tree lines and hedgerows will be lost. It is quite possible that the development will exclude Barbastelle bats from preferred foraging patches. It is also highly likely that there will be adverse effects on other bat species within the area of the development.
The Ecology Chapter of the Environmental Statement is not fit for purpose. It makes no reference to the local Barbastelle colony, despite this information being widely available.
Local Planning Authorities are required to conserve and enhance biodiversity under the NPPF and the Environmental Statement fails to adequately appraise the local ecological receptors or assess the likely effects on them from this development. As such, any harm to nearby bat assemblages, particularly the local Barbastelle colony, cannot adequately be avoided, mitigated or compensated for and planning permission should be refused.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to object to the application and request planning permission be refused. The importance of the area for bats, particularly in relation to Barbastelle bats (recognised as a priority species for conservation measures locally, nationally and internationally) is restated. Whilst the additional bat survey work and mitigation measures are welcomed, it is nevertheless considered that the bat survey effort undertaken continues to be inadequate, fails to meet the criteria specified in current professional bat survey guidance and therefore the bat mitigation measures remain unsatisfactory.
The bat survey work continues to be ineffectual for several key reasons:
Page 84 • the suite of bat activity surveys has erroneously been undertaken on the basis that the site is of “moderate” foraging and commuting habitat suitability for bats (as described in Collins (ed) 2016 (table 4.1). However, given the available information regarding the importance of the area for bats, including nationally rare species, and the range of habitats on the site, the level of survey effort should accord with that described as “high” suitability for foraging and commuting bats. This means that the level of acoustic survey effort undertaken in 2019 is half what it should have been. The September 2019 transect was inexplicably curtailed to only 1 hour 35 minutes; the late summer is an important period for bat activity when, for example, bats disperse from maternity roosts, commute to mating sites and establish territories.
• the suite of nocturnal building surveys undertaken in 2018 and 2019 is inadequate to inform the vital appraisal of this site in respect of bats, principally because insufficient surveys were completed and the surveys completed were insufficient in their duration and undertaken by an insufficient number of surveyors. For example, it is highly questionable why all of the buildings on the site apart from one have been assessed to be of negligible suitability for roosting or hibernating bats, and therefore not subject to any nocturnal surveys, despite the presence of a common Pipistrelle roost and a Brown Long-Eared bat hibernaculum within one building and nocturnal bat activity has been recorded within the buildings complex, including Barbastelle passes. Bats have a propensity to occupy more than one building within a local roost resource. The majority of buildings on the site should have been subject to at least one nocturnal survey (with sufficient surveyor coverage). In relation to the building which was surveyed, it appears that an insufficient number of nocturnal surveyors was provided; the three surveyors stationed around the building could not have watched the entire building for emerging or (re)entering bats and two of the 2018 nocturnal surveys were of inadequate duration. Professional bat survey guidance states nocturnal bat surveys should last at least two hours.
• the methods and technologies chosen to survey and appraise the site fail to account for the increased likelihood of encountering the cryptic and secretive bat species known to be present in the immediate vicinity, as well as many of the inherent difficulties of surveying for elusive, fast-moving, silent, nocturnal animals. At least some of the acoustic technologies used are outdated and therefore inappropriate; the failure to utilise infra-red or thermal technologies to survey the buildings comprehensively is inexcusable; and the apparent lack of consideration of advanced techniques (catching and radio-tracking bats) to understand how an endangered species like the Barbastelle uses the site in detail is neglectful. The bat detectors used in the acoustic surveys are no longer acceptable for modern professional bat surveys for
Page 85 foraging and commuting bats. Survey guidance now states that Full Spectrum automated bat detectors should be used as a minimum because they record all frequencies and retain all details of call structure, which means fewer bats are missed and more can be identified. Whilst it appears that some Full Spectrum units were deployed in 2019, no information regarding when or where is provided and professional survey guidance stated that different units should not be deployed to survey the same area. There is no information provided as to whether any of the bat detectors and microphones were calibrated and tested prior to their remote deployment; at least one failure suggests they were not. There is very limited information provided in the reports regarding the analysis of the bat data, which is critical to an effective appraisal. There is no acknowledgement of, nor accounting for, the inherent biases of all bat detectors, which means that more “loud” species (e.g. Nyctalus and Pipistrelle bats) are recorded, whereas “quiet” species (e.g. Barbastelle, Long-Eared and Myotis bats) are often under-recorded. It is therefore highly likely that Barbastelle, Myotis and Brown Long-Eared bats will have been significantly under-recorded during the survey efforts. The failure to utilise infra-red or thermal technologies to augment the nocturnal surveys of the buildings and trees is unacceptable given the poor visibility experienced on most nocturnal surveys.
The value of this site and surrounding area for roosting, commuting and foraging bats has not been sufficiently appraised and in the absence of robust bat activity data, the mitigation proposed simply cannot ensure that there is no detrimental effect on the favourable conservation status of the local bat species in their natural ranges, particularly for the rare Barbastelle. The radio-tracking map in the previous response and the Nottinghamshire Barbastelle Project report demonstrates that Barbastelles traverse this site and it proves that it is within the core sustenance zone of the local colony; one which occupies multiple maternity roosts within only a few hundred metres of it.
The bat survey design and follow-on mitigation need revisiting as a minimum. However, in line with the requirement of the NPPF for LPAs to conserve and enhance biodiversity and refuse planning applications “if significant harm resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for” propose that it may be more appropriate to refuse the proposals outright, given that it will not be possible to entirely mitigate the negative effects on the exceptional local bat assemblage.
(viii) Lincolnshire Bat Group – interim observations made raising concerns but only interim as don’t have results of this summer’s surveys.
Page 86 Although the ecologists list the large number of species of bats recorded at Hill Holt Wood, they have totally failed to understand the significance of this, making no further reference to it, only making reference to Pipistrelle species and the suspected small population of Brown Long-Eared bats roosting at the site, until the summary when they make passing reference to ‘a range of bat species..’. It is to be hoped that this will have been remedied by their further survey work.
With reference to the submission by Nottinghamshire Bat Group on their work on Barbastelle bats at Hill Holt Wood, because of the long time scale of the ecology survey the data search, requested in 2016, did not pick up on this information as not yet available, so this is not the ecologists’ fault. However, with a bat assemblage that already included nine of the twelve bat species recorded in the county, in what is undoubtedly one of the richest area for bats in Lincolnshire, they should have placed emphasis on finding how these species were moving round the area - bats are highly mobile animals. Radio tracking of Barbastelles, as demonstrated by Nottinghamshire Bat Group’s work, shows that they commute out from Hill Holt wood, and from the nearby Norton Big wood, across farmland to Stapleford Moor and Stapleford Wood to the south. Other species are likely to do the same thing.
The ecologists state that the site is currently unlit. Many of the species – including the Brown Long-Eared bats roosting there – are light averse, and any lighting of what is currently a dark site is likely to be problematic. At the moment, have considerable concerns about the proposed lighting plans and the long-term mitigation offered, as the ecologists only appear to refer to the construction phase, not the long-term round-the-clock use of the site, which is likely to have a considerable impact.
Therefore request to be consulted when the results and recommendations of the 2018 surveys are published, to allow an opportunity to make further comments.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to state that the further information gives a much more balanced view of bat use of the site, following updated information. It should be noted that the Barbastelle, the species of greatest concern, is protected under the Habitats Directive Annex II, along with three other UK species, in addition to other UK legislation.
The methodologies used were appropriate.
In the north a very low level of Barbastelle activity was recorded during May and September only. Barbastelles are largely light adverse and this end of the site is close to the A46. There was more activity from Pipistrelle species, which are much more light tolerant.
Page 87 As landscaping develops it should shield the surroundings of this site from any light spill.
There was no Barbastelle activity in the centre but the situation is different as roosting activity was recorded in Building 1 which will require mitigation to be carried out under a European Protected Species Licence, which would need to be applied for and conditioned.
In the south the Nottinghamshire Barbastelle Project radio tracked bats were recorded flying across the south east corner of the site en route to Stapleford Woods. Bats are creatures of habit and in 2019 low levels of Barbastelle activity were recorded here in every month except June (when the machine failed) and September. The lighting around the lagoon – 24 separate posts – are stipulated to be emergency lighting only – it is absolutely essential that this is adhered to and the area is otherwise kept dark. The lagoon itself should be of biodiversity value in enhancing the insect population and the landscaping proposals are otherwise satisfactory.
Long term use of the site issues are not addressed by the ecologists, with mitigation mainly aimed at the construction phase. More detailed lighting plans are required as it is presumably to be in operation night and day.
(ix) Nottinghamshire County Council Member, Councillor M Dobson – the development would generate an additional 150 two way HGV trips and would have an unacceptable impact on the highway in the immediate vicinity of the application site and the wider area.
Concerns regarding the safety of the Folly Lane junction, with the A46 and the crossing of the carriageway given the use by large, slow moving vehicles to enter and exit a national speed limit road via a substandard and dangerous junction. The existing junction wasn’t designed for this level of HGVs and it is inevitable that accidents will occur. There is a record of accidents on these roads which will be exacerbated.
Traffic will add to the levels of congestions on the road network in the Newark area which suffers gridlock most days.
Delivery vehicles must be prohibited from using Potter Hill Road providing a short-cut to the A1133 through the centre of Collingham which is totally unsuitable for HGV traffic and would have significant environmental nuisance to local residents.
There are similar facilities in Nottinghamshire at Stoke Bardolph, Gedling and J G Pears at Low Marnham, Newark which generate significant odour emissions in the surrounding area, despite both appearing to operate to the required environmental standard and the J G Pears facility being constructed within the last 12 months with
Page 88 “modern” odour controls. Also informed that the applicant’s Skellingthorpe facility generates significant odour emissions. It would introduce a totally unacceptable odour nuisance to Norton Disney and residential properties in Nottinghamshire, most notably in Collingham, which lies approximately 1.5km away.
Do not accept the applicant’s submission that odour would not disperse from delivery vehicles as they emit obnoxious levels of odour as they travel through residential communities.
Incorporates a large number of buildings which would be up to 35 metres high. The visual impact in an otherwise rural area would be massive and would be visible from a large area due to its location in an otherwise flat and open landscape. Cannot see any justification in planning policy terms to support the demolition of the existing farmhouse and associated buildings and their replacement with these intrusive and dominant industrial buildings.
The siting next to the proposed Lancaster Bomber memorial is incompatible.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded to restate previous objections, the potential environmental effects and emphasised the highway concerns regarding the access to the site and road safety implications of large, slow moving HGVs utilising the A46 central reservation to turn into or exit the site. Also emphasise the previous concerns regarding wider routeing of the delivery vehicles along village roads and the A1133 through Collingham.
(x) Hill Holt Wood – opposing the proposal as it is an industrial development within a rural setting and it should be located in an existing industrialised setting. It has the potential to be detrimental to the surrounding environment in a number of ways which will be long lasting.
It will be situated in the Witham Valley Country Park which is made up of high quality green spaces in the heart of Lincolnshire. The Park is a great place to unwind and has a range of flora and fauna that are rare to Lincolnshire and includes Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Nature Reserves and Local Wildlife Sites (LWS).
The woodlands within a mile radius of the site have been extensively monitored and researched for bats and it has been proven that 11 species are present. The sites have potential for SSSI status and the presence of bats indicates the health of the natural environment. Within the area are 5 LWS and 3 Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. The proposal is in diametric opposition to this ecological gem and will cast an unacceptable industrial shadow over this largely unspoiled natural environment.
Page 89 The component parts of the proposal will spoil the aesthetics of the area, affecting visual amenity, create noise and the lorries will, as the owner of Lincoln Proteins said, have some odour associated with them.
While every effort will be made to ensure legislation is complied with, it is a fact of life that accidents can and do occur. In the event, however unlikely, of a spillage, there is potential for the pollution and contamination of the surrounding woodland and farmland.
Within several hundred metres of the site are quite a number of private dwellings and the nationally and internationally recognised Social Enterprise, Hill Holt Wood. The project employs 40 local people and has had a significant impact on the local communities with positive change in both people and environment. A plant such as this has the potential to detrimentally affect this business as well as the lives and properties of others in the immediate area.
The whole proposal in unacceptable and will take every possible step to oppose the plans.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded stating still strongly opposed to the proposal, nothing contained in the latest submission has allayed fears and concerns.
Conceded that the edge of Hill Holt Wood, at its south west corner, will be subject to a slightly adverse odour impact. This point is also the location for the Artist’s workshop and guesthouse, which is incorrectly indicated as being 150 metres from its actual position. This is a significant error in the report, albeit that the impact is purported to be minimal.
The important and significant project at Hill Holt Wood will also be impacted by noise, which is described as having a “moderate impact” at night. As the Artist studio will provide residential accommodation for the incumbent the noise will have an adverse effect not only on the sleep quality but also on the attractiveness of the position when advertised. Suggest a view is sought from the local authority environmental health officer.
Furthermore, the erection of a large, industrial-scale factory complex will have a significant visual impact on the views currently enjoyed from the location of the proposed Artist studio. While it is agreed that, once matured, the planting of hedgerows and trees around the factory will, to a degree, mitigate the impact on the view, the reality is that this process will take a significant number of years and in that time frame will have serious detrimental effect on the viability of the Artist studio development.
Page 90 There are some anomalies in the bird species report with Spotted Flycatchers having been recorded every year since 2014 (not just in that year) and had breeding Spotted Flycatchers for the last 5 years with at least 3 nests this year, fledging 13 young. They are a Red List conservation species so are vulnerable.
There is a Barbastelle bat maternity roost at Norton Disney Big Wood some 2 km east of the proposed factory, this is a rare UK species and the roost is thought to be the most northerly colony in the UK. The factory is in foraging distance of these bats and light pollution and temporary interruption in tree and hedge foraging corridors could have detrimental impacts on this species. Note comments in the environmental survey regarding harm to bats.
Understand business perspective of investing in this site as the applicant owns it but it does not mean it is needed within 10 miles of an existing facility. The proposed location is inappropriate.
(xi) Kinder Estates Ltd, Witham Valley Care Group Ltd, Witham Prospect School, Supported Tenancy Solutions Ltd and Hill Top Farm Partnership – representations have been received on behalf of Kinder Estates Ltd, Witham Valley Care Group Ltd, Witham Prospect School, Supported Tenancy Solutions Ltd and Hill Top Farm Partnership. The original representation sets out the services and facilities provided by the respondents, including a residential care home on the outskirts of Norton Disney for younger adults with severe learning disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder and sensory processing difficulties; supported living services in Collingham and Coddington with all employees living locally; and a new residential school for children with severe learning disabilities, including autism spectrum disorder and sensory processing difficulties.
The group of companies oppose the proposal for a number of reasons:
• the negative impact it will have on the extremely vulnerable and specialist group of children and young people that live in close proximity; • the impact on the business and other local businesses, affecting local growth and development; • detrimental impact on the Lancaster Bomber sculpture; • significant detrimental impact on the character and appearance of the existing and potential heritage assets, contrary to CLLP policy LP25 and section 12 of the NPPF; • detrimental impact on wildlife, contrary to CSDMP policy DM9, CLLP policy LP21 and section 11 of the NPPF; and • detrimental visual impact on the character of the countryside, contrary to CSDMP policy DM6 and CLLP policies LP17 and LP55.
Page 91 Details are provided regarding issues relating to autism spectrum disorder, including in relation to behaviour as a result of impacts on the senses. Particular concern is expressed regarding noise and odour and the impacts on people with autism spectrum disorder. The pupils and young adults the group provide services for should be able to enjoy their homes and surroundings but the development will have a negative impact on the sensory environment, making some of the school site inaccessible. The development would be contrary to CLLP policies LP5 and LP26.
Concern regarding impact of increased HGV traffic through Norton Disney regarding noise and highway safety issues. No consideration has been given of highways implications if the A17 is closed. There would be significant impacts if the A46 or A17 is closed. The proposal is contrary to CSDMP policies DM1, DM2, DM13 and DM14, CLLP policies LP13 and LP26 and section 4 of the NPPF.
The level of employment proposed to be created is nominal in comparison to local employment of the respondents businesses.
An application on the existing site will enable an alternative provider to continue to operate the business from that site and so will result in cumulative impacts with Lincolnshire becoming the county of meat rendering plants not the picturesque and historic county it is known to be at present.
If granted planning permission, would be forced to reconsider locations of future developments which would be detrimental to the local economy, existing plans have already been put on hold.
A second representation was submitted containing a High Court judgement from June 2018 relating to the Public Sector Equality Duty, as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2000.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded, reiterating previous objections, stating that the impacts on the children and adults cared for by the group have been totally ignored; and provided further detailed information regarding sensitivity to sensory information having profound effects on the lives of people with such disorders. Specifically details are provided in relation to hypersensitivity in relation to noise and odour and the potential significant negative impacts for children and young people in the care of the businesses, including reactions such as distress, anxiety and physical pain.
The Regulation 25 Noise Assessment and Odour Impact Assessment have regarded Witham Prospect School as a mainstream school. The Noise Assessment and has failed to include or acknowledge the impact on the residential and day pupils. The conclusion that there would be no impact is strongly contested. Surprised that the Clinical
Page 92 Psychology Assessment Report does not consider noise impacts and it should be considered incomplete. Surprised that this report excludes Witham Prospect School due to the briefing of the local authority, who should remain impartial. The commitment in the Odour Impact Assessment for complaints to be investigated is detrimental to local residents and businesses, they should be investigated on the day they are received to rectify the matter in a timely manner.
Concerns are raised regarding the safety of children in the care of the group in relation to road safety and “stranger-danger” as a result of the proposals.
The lack of existing alternative sites does not justify the location of this proposal in the open countryside.
It does not comply with CSDMP policies W3, W4 or W7. It is contrary to paragraph 190 of the NPPF as there is only a partial archaeological assessment. There is a lack of certainty regarding ecology on the site. Strongly disagree with the conclusions in relation to landscape and visual impacts due to the location on a ridge and the scale of the proposals, even when the landscaping is mature, it will fail to mitigate the impacts of the proposal.
Repeats the policies referred to previously which the proposal is contrary to.
(xii) Witham Valley Park Preservation Group – submitted a large representation setting out a wide range of objections to the development, stating that it would be catastrophic to the lives and futures of local businesses and residents, to visitors to the area and to Lincolnshire as a whole. The objections can be summarised as:
• no national need and two facilities close by; • the applicant company is not local as claimed; • site only chosen as it was bought cheaply; • odour and noise impacts, with odour worse at weekend and noise a particular problem in relation to empty trailers; • no access to gas or sufficient electricity so will want to build a Combined Heat and Power generation plant; • allegation that the applicant lied in relation to type of raw material; • does not comply with the local plan in relation to environmental assets, heritage assets, water resources, inappropriate location, impact on local businesses, impact on visitors, impact on Lancaster Bomber landmark, impact on Hill Holt Wood and impact of agricultural land; • there are technical omissions, inconsistencies and errors (a report is provided in relation to the feasibility, technical details and potential issues of the proposals); • there are no sewers at or near the site;
Page 93 • extensive lighting will cause light pollution at night; • increased vermin; • A46 junction will be unreasonably dangerous; • impact on Roman villa, which is much larger than the Scheduled area, and Iron Age archaeology; • the area should be regarded as a Valued Landscape due to concentrated archaeological remains and the Lancaster Bomber landmark; • there are errors and misrepresentations in the photographs in the LVIA; • the jobs created would be overwhelmingly be off-set by the potential job losses (more than 200) and business failures if it goes ahead; • will seek to be a party at an appeal and will seek a full judicial review of the entire planning process if planning permission is granted; and • the group has the full support of two MPs.
In addition to the above, also included within this representation are a copy of the lease for the existing site at Jerusalem Road, Skellingthorpe, a copy of the land registry documents for the application site, the RICS Professional Standards and Guidance regarding conflicts of interest, representations of local businesses and a copy of North Kesteven District Council’s Planning Committee report regarding the proposed Lancaster Bomber landmark.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded stating that nothing in the further information provided makes any material difference to the objections previously raised, that it still fails to meet the Lincolnshire Local Plan, Waste Local Plan and the NPPF; it represents an objectionable business proposition which is neither necessary nor in the public interest; and it would cause immense damage and misery to a large number of local businesses and residents, many of which are engaged in tourism, ecological or education activities.
Objections are raised in relation to breaches in planning policy; the continuation of rendering activity at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe; the adequacy of the assessment of alternative locations; considered that the Odour Impact Assessment is prejudiced, contains assumptions and the expert goes beyond his area of expertise, for example, how does he know the raw material will be limited to that less than 24 hours old; the Clinical Psychology Assessment Report is flawed as it relies on inaccurate information; lack of power and need to construct a Combined Heat and Power plant; there have been no material changes to the noise report; there would be increased traffic as a result of the Skellingthorpe plant operating; adverse lighting impacts, including in relation to bats; impacts on water courses; adverse impacts on the Roman villa and other archaeology and a lack of appreciation or understanding of currently recorded historic
Page 94 information; visual impacts in relation to the landscape, historic environment and Lancaster Bomber landmark; and reiterate technical issues regarding the approach proposed to processing.
(xiii) Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group – construction of a rendering plant in the centre of a 2000 year old Iron Age and Roman estate will destroy the context and setting of the estate and scheduled Roman villa.
There is information missing from the application, for example, geophysics surveys, the desktop survey is out of date and there is a failure to properly investigate the application site. There are no references to important recent finds and features are omitted, such as Gallows Nooking Common. Norton Disney is one of the very few places in England with clear evidence of Iron Age smelting and this has not been considered. The full extent of the Roman villa context needs to be shown. Reference is made to an appeal decision (the decision of which was subsequently provided in full) regarding a buried Roman villa which is a scheduled monument.
The site is not designated for industrial use and the development does not protect or enhance the historic environment. In terms of the NPPF, significant harm is caused and there are no public interest issues that can be claimed. There is already a plant at Skellingthorpe and no need for two.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded with five further representations. A large amount of information has been submitted with these representations, including lists of Historic England records, information from the Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record, aerial photographs, geophysical reports, reports on sample analysis, an archaeological report in relation to the investigations associated with the Lancaster Bomber landmark at Brills Farm, Norton Disney and an appeal decision at land at Lotsmead Farm, Swindon.
Objections are maintained to the development and can be summarised as:
• inadequate, incomplete and inaccurate assessment of aerial photographs, with particular reference to evidence of cropmarks; • inadequate and incomplete consideration of Historic Environment Records in Lincolnshire and none were considered in Nottinghamshire and as a result significant amounts of information are missing, for example the find of a Romano-British figurine which is now in the British Museum, Iron Age pottery and Roman ceramic building material; • a geophysics report commissioned by the Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group identified a potential furnace site at the
Page 95 field to the south of the site and an archaeo metallurgist analysed smelting slag samples and dated them to the Middle Iron Age (reports are included); • further iron smelting slag is found in the surrounding area, including three sides of the site; • the archaeology investigation in relation to the Lancaster Bomber landmark found Iron Age pottery (the record is included); • the Archaeological Geophysical Survey is not up to date, omits reference to Iron Age slag and fails to acknowledge that the Roman villa site has only been briefly excavated, that there is a mound surrounding the remains which is clearly visible; • the Updated Heritage Assessment has a very poor understanding of the archaeology within and around the development site, including failing to recognise the site is situated on top of naturally occurring high ground, called “Potters Hill” which was documented by Mr William Stukeley, the 18th century antiquarian and straddles Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. The area should be considered as a non-designated heritage asset. Two archaeological investigation reports are submitted (dated 2001 and 2002) relating to Gallows Nooking Common, providing evidence of an Iron Age ditch. This report incorrectly interprets the NPPF in relation to heritage and no public benefit is provided by the development. The proposal would cause substantial harm to designated and non-designated heritage assets.
(xiv) Bomber County Gateway Trust – object due to the impact on the Lancaster Bomber landmark, the objectives of the Trust and the history of the area. It is noted that no reference is made in the application to the landmark. It would be seen by more than 30,000 drivers every day on the A46. The area should be classed as a Valued Landscape and agricultural land should be protected.
Objections regarding impacts on Hill Holt Wood, a number of ancient woodlands and Local Wildlife Sites within 1km of the site, the rich biodiversity and the visitor economy. Conflicts regarding the NPPF, National Planning Policy for Waste, CLLP policies LP1, LP17, LP21 and LP26.
There is a lack of national need for such a site and it is an unsustainable approach to waste management due to the distances required to be travelled.
As part of the planning permission for the Lancaster Bomber landmark, North Kesteven District Council would not allow the landmark to be lit due to potential impacts on wildlife.
Reconsulted on 5 November 2019 on the further information submitted and responded reiterating many of the previous objections. Note that the landmark should be in place by next summer. Provide details of potential viewpoints, including an area on Newark Road and
Page 96 that views would be entirely ruined by the development. Access is to be made available to the landmark for private gatherings and remembrance and proposing to provide a footpath and landscaping. It will be impossible to take photographs of the landscape without the development being wholly visible. Do not want noise or stench of the factory. The Trust are still fundraising for the project and are concerned that the development will affect the ability to raise the additional money required. The mitigation will take 50 years to mature. The projects are incompatible.
40. In addition, as a result of this publicity a total of 958 representations have been received from 680 households and organisations (at the time of writing this report). Of these representations, 53 are in support of the application, from 51 households and organisations, and 904 raise objections, from 627 households and organisations. In relation to both representations of support and objection, there are instances of “standard” letters (that is, the wording is the same on each) being used by numerous respondents.
A summary of the key areas stated in the representations of support is set out below:
• fantastic access to the A46; • it is next to the A46 which must be borne in mind when considering light pollution, noise and air quality; • vehicles already use the roads so there would be no increase in traffic; • removes HGVs from B roads; • will reduce traffic on Doddington and Whisby roundabouts and that getting into Lincoln; • road infrastructure around Skellingthorpe is poor; • location away from residential properties and businesses; • no other more suitable locations; • conducted a comprehensive assessment of the site suitability, alternative ABP methods and impact on the surrounding area; • far better than Skellingthorpe site; • would be better site as currently operate near a SSSI; • visual effects would be good and would blend into surroundings; • buildings are designed sympathetically, • improved technology means fewer impacts and energy reduction; • use of Best Available Technology (BAT); • odour assessment undertaken by leading expert; • noise control is first class; • all emissions will be controlled via legislation and enforcing authority; • controlled and regulated to a high standard; • would be permitted by North Kesteven District Council who have vast experience and inspected by the Animal and Plant Health Agency; • there is no archaeology left; • environmental improvements; • safeguard existing jobs;
Page 97 • potential to create many skilled, unskilled and clerical jobs, supporting the local community; • increased training requirements as company expands; • apprenticeship scheme will offer training where there are local and national shortages, for example, engineering; • will allow pricing and market stability by ensuring local plurality of suppliers; • without development there would be a lack of facilities; • multi-million pound investment into Lincoln area should be welcomed; • will inject cash into the economy; • will attract other organisations to the Food Enterprise Zone at Hemswell Cliff; • need to consider the loss of this business on the farming community; • many operators rely on this business for support; • important for farming in a county where it is of such importance and will increase the farming economy; • Lincolnshire plays a key role in the future of farming and it plays a vital role in the economy and food production, it is not just about the countryside as a place of leisure and aesthetic appeal; • planning has become challenging and costly in the UK and this could lead to more large businesses migrating to Europe and we will all become increasing reliant on imported food products; • always receive a first class service; • site is operated in a professional manner; • the company have been rewarded with environmental and innovation achievements; • track record at Skellingthorpe is good; • much needed development; • sustainable waste processing facility; • large professional facilities such as this are better able to enforce strict biosecurity standards, protect animals’ health against disease and antibiotic use; • no impact on schools; • if consider house values, consider the house outside the site at Skellingthorpe; • objections are nonsense and NIMBY attitudes; • concern that objectors don’t understand specialist reports; • objections raised have led to changes and improvements to the application; • disappointing that supporters often don’t put pen to paper; • can the Lancaster Bomber landmark be moved nearer to the road and should it result in the refusal of a multi-million pound investment; • service personnel wouldn’t want a memorial which would make people unemployed across the farming industry; • in relation to wildlife, the current Skellingthorpe operation is a stone’s throw from a fishing lake and there are four statutory designated sites and 58 non-statutory designated sites within 5km of the site, including Ash Lound and Brick Kiln Holt LWS which lies immediately adjacent to
Page 98 the west of the site and there have been no reported effects on these sites from the current business operation; • the current Skellingthorpe site supports a variety of habitats and has bats and some interesting species of birds; • with the improvement in technology, the new facility will not have any impact on wildlife or anything else; • Skellingthorpe site is very close to Doddington Hall which has weddings, holiday cottages and over 30,000 visitors to the halls and gardens; • Skellingthorpe site has thousands of houses within small radius and is not far from Lincoln; • concerned that will lose job if site closes; • what evidence is there it will lead to unemployment, it has not in Skellingthorpe • what evidence is there it will lead to accidents, it has not in Skellingthorpe; • what evidence is there it will affect the tourist industry, it has not in Skellingthorpe; • ice cream shop in Skellingthorpe is always busy;
A summary of the key areas of objection raised is set out below. These areas of objection have been grouped into broad categories for ease of reference in this report, but there are areas of overlap of issues (although where possible, the issue is only stated once to avoid repetition). It should be noted that some of the issues raised are not planning issues and these are addressed in the conclusions section of this report:
Traffic and Transport
• A46 very dangerous for cars let alone lorries; • unacceptable impact on A46, already fatalities; • traffic crossing A46 will block road; • A46 already struggles to cope with volume of traffic; • traffic on junction is bad with an accident every day; • A46 has poor visibility at brow of hill so will cause many accidents; • A46 already has 30,000 travellers per day; • if the A46 is closed, where will the lorries go? • Collingham junction on A46 dangerous; • A46 at capacity; • A46 filter lane not large enough to hold to HGVs and a third vehicle could fully or partially block the outside lane; • impact of spillages on A46 could prove fatal for motorcyclists and passengers; • how many more deaths will there be before the Council will install a roundabout to enable lorries to cross the carriageway safely; • mitigation measure of HGVs going up and down A46 to avoid queueing is absurd; • potential hazard of lorries doing U turns at roundabouts, may tip over or spill out waste material;
Page 99 • impacts when the A17 is closed; • impact on A1 / A17 / A46 interchange; • rural roads affected; • single lane roads; • in some places roads are only just wide enough for two cars to pass; • roads are unsuitable for lorries; • commercial vehicles on country roads are not safe; • major health and safety issue for cyclists, walkers, horse riders and all road users; • increased traffic will disrupt surrounding villages; • increase in traffic; • highways concerns; • will bring huge volume of HGVs to the area; • lorries will add to traffic which has already increased as a result of development at Witham St Hughs and Newark Showground; • there is no secondary school in the area so children have to travel by buses which are already delayed due to traffic; • roads are already over capacity; • are roads to be upgraded? • impact of diverted traffic on narrow, unsuitable road through Collingham; • HGVs will go through Brough to avoid A46; • lorries will “rat run” along minor roads; • increased likelihood of accidents on Folly Lane which is a quiet road; • Folly Lane will cease to be available for villagers to access the A46; • Newark roads already gridlocked; • problems of clashes of traffic on Folly Lane during high end equestrian events and festivals; • why are 39 bus parking spaces needed? • no bus service; • no point having cycle bays as no cycle routes; • can’t control lorries not owned by the applicant; • no details of distribution of construction traffic or new HGVs on the highway network; • Transport Assessment is dishonest as traffic won’t move from the Skellingthorpe plant; • Transport Assessment doesn’t consider near misses; • will be more traffic as will operate two plants; and • should not allow increase in road miles and associated carbon footprint.
Natural Environment
• it will greatly affect wildlife and the environment; • important natural habitats and species; • impact on flora and fauna; • impact on woodlands; • impact on Ancient Woodland;
Page 100 • impact on nature walks in the surrounding area; • impact on green infrastructure; • impact on biodiversity; • harm to Collingham Nature Reserves; • there are five wildlife sites and three SNCIs in the area; • disruption of ecosystem; • next to internationally acclaimed eco site containing Hill Holt Wood, Norton Big Wood and other recreation and holiday businesses; • impact on owls, buzzards and a collection of birds which thrive in the Folly Lane area; • impact of acid rain on Hill Holt Wood and Stapleford Wood; • harm to 11 species of bats; • especially important site for Barbastelle bats; • recommended bat surveys have not been submitted; • impact of lighting on bats; • no information provided regarding insects; • loss of a substantial number of trees; and • contrary to the nature conservation use of the Cemex site at Swinderby Airfield.
Heritage
• huge historic significance of the site; • possible archaeology within the site; • possible section of Roman road within site; • destruction of ancient lane; • potential loss or damage to important archaeological remains; • risks permanent damage to significant historic interest; • adjacent to a Scheduled Monument; • sits within an archaeological landscape; • artefact from vicinity in British Museum; • within area of Romano-British archaeology with evidence of Iron Age smeltings of great importance to the site; • impact on Crococalana; • massive significance for Lindum Colonia; • historic landmarks; • area has many Roman remains; • the site is named Villa Farm due to the history; • recommend condition to protect archaeological evidence; • Lincoln is a historic city and should not have such plants either side; • listed buildings and Conservation Areas in the surrounding area; • should be protected as a SSSI given the Roman history; • potential loss of the Villa as a heritage attraction; • archaeological information not submitted or is incomplete; • insufficient consideration of archaeology; • Norton Disney History and Archaeology Group found evidence of iron- smelting on three sides of the development site;
Page 101 • Bomber Gateway Trust archaeological investigation found Iron Age pottery; • reference to the need to appropriately consider heritage in relation to an appeal decision; and • need to consider historic common land at Gallows Nooking Common along the A46.
Amenity
• strong and unpleasant odour; • this is an area where people spend much time outside and will be impacted by smell; • smell will be horrific in the summer; • already have smell from Skellingthorpe; • references to “Smelly Skelly”; • the smell from the lagoons will blight the area; • lorries can’t be sealed so smell cannot be eradicated; • applicant described odour from lorries as an “insurmountable problem”; • lorries are the main problem regarding smell and it will get on the tyres and so be spread away from the factory; • the applicant has no intention of investing in sealed lorries; • smell parked lorries parked for long periods will linger; • filters won’t get rid of the smells; • impact of smells from Newark sugar beet factory; • impact of smell on over 600 people at the Immigration Removal Centre at Morton Hall is unfair; • Odour Management Plan untested so the results are questionable; • the Odour Management Plan commitment to investigate complaints is inadequate; • why is it acceptable at Villa Farm if it isn’t acceptable at any alternative sites? • the odour expert is not qualified in his field and so the report is not valid; • want to be able to open windows; • will ruin family time at home; • children won’t be able to play in the garden; • noise impacts; • inaccurate Noise Assessment; • the additional information regarding lighting offers no comfort; • residences within 300 metres; • acknowledged to be a “bad neighbour”; • impacts on living standards; • will ruin quality of life; • serious impacts on populations of surrounding villages; and • increased air pollution from traffic and the plant.
Page 102 Countryside / Location
• beautiful countryside; • will spoil area / landscape; • will destroy beauty of the area; • area of natural beauty; • impact on Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty; • will be a blot on the landscape; • eyesore; • stacks will spoil the view; • will dominate skyline; • visual impacts on rolling countryside for walkers and cyclists; • highly visible for substantial distance; • buildings would be seen for miles around; • report downplays visual impacts of 30 metre stack on ridgeline; • incongruous and jarring in the countryside; • will destroy Green Belt which is gateway to Lincolnshire; • enjoyment of countryside would be ruined; • landscaping will take years to mature; • farmland should be used for growing crops, not industrial use; • will do serious harm to local agriculture; • prime agricultural land should be retained; • unsuitable greenfield site; • farmland not industrial; • should go on industrial / brownfield land; • should be on a business park not a Conservation Area; • better sites available; • a lack of existing sites does not justify this location in open countryside; • in the heart of the Witham Valley Country Park / the gateway to the Witham Valley Country Park; • key vista and gateway to Lincoln; • the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) does not consider the Lancaster Bomber landmark; • the viewpoints in the LVIA do not represent vehicles travelling along the A46; • the revised LVIA still under represents visual impacts; • the County Council should request additional photomontages showing the scheme on completion within 5 years until the landscaping has matured; • close to surrounding villages; • rural community; and • should be in a non-residential area.
Air Pollution / Health / Pollution
• health and safety with transportation of diseased carcasses; • danger of spillages, for example, biohazards; • no guarantee of no spillage;
Page 103 • leakage of material from lorries as only 40% sealed; • contaminated products may affect health; • pollution of watercourses and impacts on fishing lakes; • waste water will run to Witham or Trent; • how will the “Control Site Compound” be maintained in heavy rainfall to prevent “dirty water” escaping; • potential contamination due to waste material; • vast amounts of waste to be held in liquid lagoons; • no protection in event of contamination spillage so will impact on watercourses; • contamination of ditches; • Highways England state drainage plans for the lorry park are unacceptable, this needs resolving; • increase of blow flies to local schools, nurseries, eating establishments will endanger local children and people; • risk to outdoor livestock / biosecurity; • impact on organic chicken farm which would be within “close down” cordon, for example in relation to avian influenza, paralysing business; • insects and infestations already evident at Skellingthorpe; • light pollution; • impact from car park lighting; • pollution of night sky; • no lighting was allowed for the Lancaster Bomber landmark; • no lighting was allowed for the artist’s residence at Hill Holt Wood; • will cause misery on windy day for anyone in its path; • odour will carry as on highest ground for several miles; • Odour Assessment doesn’t consider all sources of odour or cumulative impacts; • visits to Skellingthorpe show smell emissions can’t be regulated as claimed; • impact on fresh air; • impacts on health and well-being; • impacts on health due to smell; • impacts on health issues such as asthma; • health of children in communities; • impacts on those with hypersensitivities; • impact on people with Autism Spectrum Disorder and a concentration of such people in this area; • serious impacts on vulnerable people; • impacts on Witham Prospect School; • impact of noise and smells on care home; • negative impact on soldiers with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; • in 2014 a Nottinghamshire GP reported a marked increase in health complaints due to the Low Marnham factory; • fumes will affect enjoyment of property; • tall chimney means serious toxic waste emitted; • pollution and noise pollution due to increase vehicles; • noise from machinery;
Page 104 • emissions; • water used for cleaning vehicles and buildings going into local water sources is an obvious hazard; • spreading of acid rain-type particles from vaporised water would permeate water courses and burn vegetation and potential danger at Hill Holt Wood; • impact of particulate matter; • risk of airborne infections; • pathogens escaping from lorries and chimney; and • environmental hazard.
Design
• aesthetic atrocity; • unattractive; • visual harm to local countryside due to scale, siting and design; • size out of keeping with location; • the 35 metre stack is enormous; • layout and density of buildings too large; • objections to design, appearance and materials; and • size out of keeping with location.
Lancaster Bomber Landmark
• landmark would be overshadowed; • adverse impact on the landmark; • updated LVIA confirms change to setting of landmark; • would be backdrop to the landmark; • the landmark will benefit people and the area; • negate impact on magnificent Bomber Gateway proposal; • the Lancaster Bomber Gateway is a fitting entry for visitors to Lincolnshire, not this; • disrespectful of what the landmark stands for; • adverse impact on service personnel; • owe it to those who gave lives in World War Two; • will destroy possibility of visitors to the memorial; • impacts on viewing areas; • access is to be made available for private gatherings and remembrance events; and • events at the landmark which would take place under the 28 day permitted development rules are not taken into account.
Economy
• impact on local businesses including (but not limited to) local camping site, hospitality, equine uses, caravan site, Oak Hill Leisure, Lost Village Festival, B&Bs, yoga provider, wedding venue at Brills Farm, canoe club, holiday cottage;
Page 105 • impact on businesses which rely on leisure and tourism; • impact on tourism and visitors’ first impressions of Lincolnshire; • will result in job losses in local businesses, over 240 Full Time Equivalent losses; • local pub and restaurant will close; • local businesses employ more people than the proposed development and will be impacted; • jobs won’t bring significant value to the local economy as company will bring employees with them; • would jobs created be offset by job losses at existing plants? • impact on Norton Disney Horse Trials; • impact on high end equestrian events nearby with many stables and B&Bs filling up during events; • impact on jobs as people move away; • impact on the enjoyment of the village pub; • impact on takeaway business in Witham St Hughs; • the arguments regarding jobs need proper, independent economic impact study; and • businesses don’t have to be big, it should be kept small.
Skellingthorpe / Other Sites
• already a facility in area, no need for another; • already two facilities in area, no need for any more; • already have three facilities in a 15 minute radius; • there are 27 plants nationally, don’t need another; • not desirable to have another plant; • framework stipulates should only have one plant in county; • lived near plant in Gedling, smell vile in summer and waste dropped on roads; • lived near plant in Penrith with problems; • Pears factory in Normanton on Trent uses “state of the art” technology but there are still complaints from locals regarding smell; • should stay at the Skellingthorpe plant; • Skellingthorpe is a sequentially preferable location; • would not replace Skellingthorpe plant but would be in addition to it; • the existing facility should be rebuilt / upgraded; • there is spare capacity within the industry; • should be closer to source of carcasses; • it should be located on the coast with odours blown out to sea; • the case has not been made that this is sequentially better than industrial sites; • should be on a site similar to Teal Park; • there must be other places it could be located not near village populations; • the site selected as fewer objections by volume than a centrally located site; • the applicant has changed the position in relation to Skellingthorpe;
Page 106 • there is no guarantee regarding the use of Skellingthorpe after 2041, could be used by a competitor; • cumulative impacts; and • alternative locations should not be disregarded as policy expectation to be B-class, as development will generate significant employment.
Local Plan
• does not comply with local plan; • Witham Valley Country Park not listed in local plan for waste development; • conflicts with NPPF and government policy; • national guidance states waste should be managed locally; • contrary to CSDMP W1, W3, W4 (not applicable), W7, M11 (as no minerals assessment), DM1, DM2, DM6, DM9, DM12, DM13, DM14 and DM17. • contrary to CLLP policy LP1 (regarding personal benefit), LP2 (regarding environmental value and agricultural land), LP5, LP7 (regarding visitor economy, does not respect intrinsic nature and built environment and odour impacts), LP9 (regarding health and well- being), LP13 (regarding accessibility and transport), LP14 (regarding water contamination), LP17 (regarding prominent location, visual impacts, Lancaster Bomber landmark, Scheduled Monument and does not contribute positively to character or views of area), LP20 (regarding Scheduled Monument, Hill Holt Wood, agricultural land), LP21(regarding light pollution on night sky and wildlife), LP25 (regarding Scheduled Monument, Iron Age settlement and historic landscape), LP26 (regarding volume of heavy traffic and impact to Hill Holt Wood), LP55 and paragraphs 2.29 and 2.211; • North Kesteven District Council recently set out vision and purpose for the plan area and it is contrary to that; and • this is not a waste business but is trying to circumvent the District Planning process.
Hill Holt Wood
• object as next to Hill Holt Wood which is an environmental and education project; • impact on the enjoyment of Hill Holt Wood; • established and used by families; • unique beautiful woodland which helps people with education, skills provision, mental health issues and will be impacted by air pollution, smells and industrial activity; • impact on users of Hill Holt Wood with Autism Spectrum Disorder; • flagship social enterprise; • hosts weddings; • negative impact on ability to generate income and so knock-on effects; • potential for SSSI status due to bats; • will destroy biodiversity at Hill Holt Wood;
Page 107 • will spoil the environment they have spent years creating and nurturing; and • impact on the business use of Hill Holt Wood.
Other
• query why no documents have been published; • how can application be validated without the correct supporting documents; • how can they be allowed to flout planning guidelines; • yet to complete pre-application requirements; • when will full documents be available? • failure to amend previous application; • further information not addressed concerns or objections so no reason to change views in light of it; • large number of objections submitted under the last planning application for this development should remain valid; • acknowledge additional information but original objections still stand; • concerns regarding timescale for determination, extra time given to applicant, lack of time given to consultees; • North Kesteven District Council has rejected this but Lincolnshire County Council keeps providing extensions, why? • application riddled with errors, misrepresentations and inconsistencies; • wind rose data from RAF Waddington misleading as pollution will be carried to Witham St Hughs; • ill-conceived proposal; • applicants failed to hold any consultation meeting with residents of Witham St Hughs; • at presentations, couldn’t fully establish impacts on local area, especially smell; • the consultation event was a farce; • fail to see how two psychologists and a noise expert can tip the balance in favour of the development; • the attenuation ponds are not sufficiently sized; • no greenfield run-off calculations. Specific run-off calculations should be used and concerned regarding approach to drainage; • FEH Flood Studies Report data should be used as more current and onerous within Lincolnshire; • Flood Risk Assessment lacking regarding foul waste, absence of sealed foul drainage system and contaminated water; • where would above ground flood water be stored? • may be in flood area; • impact on water table; • full assessment of fire-fighting water should be undertaken; • hot spot where springs arise; • infrastructure is inadequate; • lack of services such as street lights, footpaths, public transport; • not viable place to be situated;
Page 108 • effects on animal population; • it will significantly undermine Lincolnshire County Council’s policy of promoting conservation; • Witham St Hughs is a rapidly expanding residential area, will not assist in this; • does not sit well with Witham St Hughs as a flagship village; • homebuilding project will surely cease; • will set precedent for large industrial facilities; • impact on Special Educational Needs schools; • impact on Witham Prospect School; • impact on two primary schools; • impact on care homes; • would sabotage health initiatives of the local authority and government; • the peaceful, rural setting of Norton Disney would be irreparably damaged; • no established proof regarding claims of effectiveness; • concerns if the plant breaks down; • what happens if there is a delay in transportation? • already have burden of gravel extraction, although this has an end date and a positive outcome; • threat to organic farming; • impact on green burial area; • no local or national need; • DEFRA statistics say only 9% of the country’s cattle are in the East Midlands so there is no need; • Lincolnshire is not the source of the waste; • there is a move away from meat production and consumption to veganism and vegetarianism; • need for development does not outweigh harm; • landfill Is not an alternative; • industry has spare capacity; • over 3,000 signatures against proposal; • over 3,500 people locally have objected; • two MPs have objected; • will affect over 15,000 residents; • what will happen to waste from the site? • Lincolnshire County Council should respect views of thousands of residents; • would show little understanding of the people of Lincolnshire if this is approved; • if have a duty of care to the public, it will be refused; • it would be irresponsible and irretrievable if granted; • if approved, should be called into Westminster; • pushing the boundaries of planning law; • would damage the environment beyond recovery; • if there is no smell, it should be located on an industrial site; • fails to respect RAF heritage; • loss of two dwellings;
Page 109 • countryside is being lost to great areas of housing; • opposition has increased and intensified; • no electricity or water to site; • although say Skellingthorpe plant will only operate “quarterly”, the recent application at the site shows the Leo Group want a full operation on the site; • will operate two plants; • is there a concern that the applicant could monopolise the industry leading to job losses elsewhere and forcing further carbon footprint of road miles and costs; and • concerned that letters of support are from same person or family or are connected to the applicant, are saying the same thing and are trying to fool the County Council
Non-Planning Matters
• not good for new house sales; • difficulties selling house; • impact on house prices; • driven by money; • only looked at cheap option; • will want to build sewage treatment works; • impact of Brexit on supply of spare parts; • own and farm the adjacent land and have a right of access across site and would not be allowed to leave with any livestock from that land due to potential contamination with Category 1, 2 or 3 ABP; • applicant does not live in Lincolnshire; • queries regarding trustworthiness of agent; • animal rights issues; • all about revenue for the County Council; • shouldn’t think about tax receipts, the Local Authority still has masses of financial reserves; • Councillors should learn lessons of recent general election and are duty bound to fulfil wishes of the public; • purchase price of the land didn’t reflect an industrial use; • inappropriate location just to save applicant money; • disputes between the landlord and tenant are not a planning matter; • problem with entering representation on-line (but was ultimately successful); • the company has a poor record of health and safety and of contamination of watercourses; • will want to construct a CHP plant for power; and • will the applicant compensate for loss of sleep and extra washing of clothes.
In addition to this, two petitions objecting to the proposed development have been submitted. One of the petitions pre-dates the validation of the planning application and one of the petitions ran from prior to validation until shortly
Page 110 after validation. The first petition, entitled “”No!”…to Norton Disney Animal By Products Rendering Plant”, was presented to Lincolnshire County Council’s Full Council meeting on 15 December 2017. This petition was submitted with 3,353 signatures (obtained between 19 October and 29 November 2017). The second petition is entitled “Save the Norton Disney Roman Villa” and was submitted with 3,616 signatures (obtained between 4 January and 21 May 2018). Neither petition contains full names and addresses of all of the signees, but it appears that some people have signed both petitions and / or also submitted individual representations.
District Council’s Recommendations
41. North Kesteven District Council initially responded as follows:
(i) Site selection/locational strategy policy compliance, alternatives and need - as submitted the proposals fail to fully evidence the availability of alternative sites, the need for additional ABP capacity and therefore the principle of development in a countryside location as opposed to the sequentially preferred use of sites (including allocated sites) better associated with urban areas. The District Council therefore considers the proposals to be in conflict with policy W3 of the CSDMP and policies LP1, LP2, LP5 and LP55 of the CLLP.
(ii) Odour and Air Quality (see also ecology) - as submitted the proposals fail to fully assess odour and air quality impacts, not limited to fugitive emissions, the availability of alternative development sites, plant capacity, odour and air quality emission rates and potential impacts on high sensitivity receptors including those with ASD, specifically in respect of Hill Holt Wood and the Witham Prospect School. The District Council therefore considers the proposals to be in conflict with policy DM3 of the CSDMP and policies LP5, LP26 and LP55 of the CLLP.
(iii) Landscape and Visual Impacts and trees - the proposals fail to relate well to the site and surroundings or enhance or reinforce local distinctiveness and instead cause a significant degree of harm to the character and appearance of the countryside - compounded by the height and width, and steam emissions, from the 35m stack. Tree loss will also occur and mitigation planting will fail to fully screen the proposals. The District Council therefore considers the proposals to be in conflict with policy DM6 of the CSDMP and policies LP2, LP17, LP26 and LP55 of the CLLP.
Raise concerns in relation to the following matters:
(iv) Traffic and Transport - the proposals have the potential to increase the risks of accidents associated with slow moving turning vehicles joining and leaving the A46/Folly Lane including through crossing the north/southbound carriageways, including consideration of mitigations
Page 111 available such as routeing agreements to avoid HGV movements crossing on-coming traffic on the A46/Folly Lane junction. The District Council therefore request the County Council to seek further clarity on the highway safety implications of the proposals from Highways England and the Highway Authority to demonstrate compliance with policy DM13 of the CSDMP and policy LP13 of the CLLP. Furthermore, construction and operational routeing agreements should be secured restricting site access solely via the A46/Folly Lane (subject to the above).
(v) Historic Environment - the proposals have the potential to impact on the setting and significance of designated heritage assets in proximity to the site including the Norton Disney Roman Villa SAM. Additional assessment should be sought from the applicant including in relation to public benefit, in order to demonstrate compliance with policy DM4 of the CSDMP and policy LP25 of the CLLP.
(vi) Minerals Safeguarding - the site is within a Sand and Gravel Safeguarding area and as such a Minerals Assessment should be provided in order to demonstrate compliance with policy M11 of the CSDMP.
In relation to the secondary issues:
In relation to noise and construction that Lincolnshire County Council to satisfy themselves that the proposals accord with relevant policy and conditions can be applied as appropriate.
In relation to ground and surface water contamination that Lincolnshire County Council seek advice from the relevant consultees (specifically the Environment Agency) and thereafter that the proposals accord with relevant policy and conditions can be applied as appropriate.
In relation to surface water drainage and flood risk that Lincolnshire County Council are satisfied that the proposals accord with statutory consultee advice (including the Lead Local Flood Authority), relevant policy, and that conditions can be applied as appropriate.
In relation to ecology that Lincolnshire County Council seek advice from the relevant consultees (specifically Natural England and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust) and thereafter that the proposals accord with relevant policy and that conditions can be applied as appropriate.
Following the receipt of the further information, North Kesteven District Council responded to object to the application on the following grounds:
(i) Site selection/locational strategy policy compliance, alternatives and need - notwithstanding that having regard to the nature of the proposals the development of an ABP facility in the countryside may be able to be justified, the applicant has failed to fully evidence why
Page 112 alternative allocated employment sites are unable to accommodate the development. The applicant has applied an inconsistent approach to the modelling of odour impacts in relation to the alternative development sites, resulting in those sites being unjustifiably ruled out (in particular land at Newark on Trent), and which could otherwise appear capable of accommodating the development.
Furthermore, the applicant has failed to evidence a need for additional ABP capacity and has instead identified a contractual requirement to maintain a level of ABP operations at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe.
The applicant is therefore unable to enter into a Unilateral Undertaking requiring the cessation of operations there upon the operation of the proposed Norton Disney ABP facility. The proposals are therefore in conflict with policy W3 of the CSDMP, policies LP1, LP2, LP5 and LP55 of the CLLP and guidance within National Planning Policy for Waste (NPPW).
(ii) Landscape and Visual Impacts and trees - the proposals fail to relate well to the site and surroundings or enhance or reinforce local distinctiveness and instead cause a significant degree of harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and the Terrace Sandlands landscape sub-area. This harm is compounded by the height and width, and steam emissions, from the 35m stack and the required installation of external lighting to facilitate 24 hour operations.
The applicant's revised Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment relies heavily on tree planting along site boundaries to mitigate harmful landscape and visual impacts in particular from the south/south west and where the species composition of the screening planting belt is poorly developed and will take a significant time to mature.
The District Council therefore considers the proposals to be in conflict with policy DM6 of the CSDMP, policies LP2, LP17, LP26 and LP55 of the CLLP and guidance within National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Policy for Waste.
(iii) Historic Environment - the proposals have the potential to impact on the setting and significance of designated heritage assets in proximity to the site including the Norton Disney Roman Villa Scheduled Monument. There are a large number of entries on the Historic Environment Record (HER) surrounding the site, and the site is set within a wider landscape of elevated heritage significance. The Council agrees with the applicant that the proposals will cause a degree of 'less than substantial' harm to the significance of those designated heritage assets but where the public benefits of the development (the counterbalance required by local and national policy) is poorly substantiated.
Page 113 The applicant cannot claim any public benefits stemming from the full closure of the ABP facility at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe on the basis of associated contractual obligations, and the applicant's claim of public benefit associated with the recording of local archaeological evidence should not be a factor in deciding whether harm to the historic environment should be permitted. As such the proposals fail to accord with policy DM4 of the CSDMP, policy LP25 of the CLLP and guidance within the National Planning Policy Framework and the National Planning Policy for Waste.
Raise concerns in relation to the following matters:
(iv) Odour and Air Quality - Lincolnshire County Council should satisfy themselves that operational impacts on groups with potentially heightened sensitivities to odour emissions (specifically those with Autism Spectrum Disorder at Hill Holt Wood and Witham Prospect School) are acceptable, with reference to the professional advice of Public Health England (PHE). Furthermore, the County Council should be satisfied that an Odour Management Plan can be used to manage odour impacts associated with the development to an acceptable level, including associated with HGV's delivering raw material queuing at the A46/Folly Lane junction.
(v) Traffic and Transport - Lincolnshire County Council should satisfy themselves that a construction and operational HGV routeing agreement can be used to mitigate the risks associated with multiple HGV's queuing to turn right at the A46/Folly Lane junction and to ensure that HGV access/egress to the site is solely via the A46 and Folly Lane. This is necessary to demonstrate compliance with policy DM13 of the CSDMP, policy LP13 of the CLLP and advice contained in the NPPF.
In relation to the secondary issues:
In relation to noise and construction that the County Council satisfy themselves that the proposals accord with relevant policy and conditions can be applied as appropriate.
In relation to minerals safeguarding that the County Council satisfy themselves that the proposals accord with relevant policy and conditions can be applied as appropriate.
In relation to ground and surface water contamination that the County Council seek advice from the relevant consultees (specifically the Environment Agency) and thereafter that the proposals accord with relevant policy and conditions can be applied as appropriate.
In relation to surface water drainage and flood risk that the County Council are satisfied that the proposals accord with statutory consultee advice
Page 114 (including the Lead Local Flood Authority), relevant policy, and that conditions can be applied as appropriate.
In relation to ecology that the County Council seek advice from the relevant consultees (specifically Natural England and Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust) and thereafter that the proposals accord with relevant policy and that conditions can be applied as appropriate.
Conclusions
42. Having regards to Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004), this application must be determined in accordance with provisions of the Development Plan, unless other material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the Development Plan comprises of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan (2016) and Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2018) which are up-to-date documents.
43. Planning permission is sought for the erection of an animal by-products processing facility to include two processing buildings for Category 1 (and Category 2) and Category 3 material, associated ducting, ancillary boiler houses, covered filtration beds with flues, 35 metre high composite stack, water treatment plant, internal roadways, employee welfare buildings, stores, weighbridge, weighbridge kiosk, trailer park, visitor and staff car park, attenuation lagoons, clean water pond, landscaping, new vehicular access to Folly Lane, upgraded second access, 2.4 metre paladin fencing, change of use and alterations to the two existing dwellings to form ancillary offices and demolition of all other existing buildings at Villa Farm, Folly Lane, Norton Disney.
44. There are a wide range of key issues to be considered in relation to this proposal, which are set out below. Many of the key issues are interlinked and so not all sections have discrete conclusions, but instead are brought together at the end of the report in a section entitled “Planning Balance”.
Location
45. The application site sits within the open countryside, as set out in the CLLP. It is therefore necessary that the proposed development is considered in relation to the policy context for development in the countryside.
Principle of the Development
46. The proposed development constitutes a waste management development. Policy W3 is the most appropriate policy of the CSDMP dealing with such developments, setting out the spatial strategy for new waste facilities, together with policy DM2 which sets out the requirement to implement the waste hierarchy. There are no policies in the CSDMP which specifically deal with the rendering of animal by-products (ABP).
Page 115 47. Policy DM2 reflects the National Planning Policy for Waste’s approach to the waste hierarchy, with a view to pushing waste as far up the hierarchy as possible. The rendering process which would take place at the proposed ABP plant, takes the waste ABP and processes it in such a manner that it is re-used to create new products, such as those set out above. Whilst it is not permitted in the UK to landfill ABP, the proposed plant ensures that this stream of waste is re-used and therefore is close to the top of the waste hierarchy, in accordance with policy DM2.
48. Policy W3 relates to new waste facilities and large extensions to existing waste facilities. New waste facilities are required to be located in and around an identified list of main urban areas. In relation to new waste facilities outside these urban areas, the policy requires further criteria to be met, none of which are applicable to the current proposals. This policy sets out the types of waste facilities which may be acceptable outside these urban areas, but none of these refer to animal by-product processing. The fourth criteria which allows for development to be located outside the main urban areas relates to small scale waste facilities. Small scale waste facilities are dealt with in policy W7 of the CSDMP. The supporting text provides context for what is considered to be small scale, identifying thresholds which are to be applied, the highest of which is the processing of 9,000 tonnes of waste per annum. Whilst animal by-product processing is not mentioned within this policy or the supporting text, the scale of the proposed development (the applicant has stated a maximum capacity of 5,000 tonnes per week, therefore 260,000 tonnes per annum) is such that it cannot be considered to be small scale and therefore policy W7 is not applicable in this case.
49. It therefore is concluded that animal by-product processing must be considered within the context of the first part of policy W3, and that, in principle, this type of waste facility would be permitted in and around the identified urban areas. The supporting text to this policy (paragraph 6.45) acknowledges that there are “facilities which by their nature may be best placed outside areas of high population due to their potential amenity impacts (in the main, odour)” and goes on to provide examples of the types of facility to which this might apply. Again, animal by-product processing is not identified as one of these types of facility, but it is fair to conclude that this is not intended to be an exhaustive or exclusive list. However, any such facilities which are not proposed to be located in and around the urban areas, and are not cited with the second part of policy W3, are not in accordance with the policy. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development is not in accordance with CSDMP policy W3.
50. Policy LP2 of the CLLP sets out the spatial strategy and settlement hierarchy across the Central Lincolnshire area, with the aim of delivering sustainable growth. In relation to development in the countryside, it adopts a restrictive approach, only allowing development which falls within specific categories, including development which is demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture, that falling under policy LP5 or policy
Page 116 LP55, or waste development in accordance with separate Minerals and Waste Local Development Documents.
51. The applicant has sought to argue that the proposed development is demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture. The submitted documentation acknowledges that the processing of ABP is not in itself an agricultural operation, but states that it is inextricably linked to the agriculture industry. That the processing of ABP has links to agriculture is not disputed, however, there are two key issues which are not addressed by the applicant. Firstly, the policy requires that the development must be “demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture”. There is nothing to suggest that agriculture in the immediate vicinity of the application site, nor the wider area, would not be able to operate effectively if this proposed development was not located in this, or any other, countryside location. Notwithstanding the detailed matters which will be assessed and discussed below, in principle, if this type of operation was to be located on a site which was not in the countryside, it is not considered that it would have a detrimental effect on the operation of existing agriculture in the vicinity of the application site, or the wider area. Indeed, the Planning, Design and Access Statement states that 374 of the customers currently using the applicant’s Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site are within 50 miles of the plant. This demonstrates that the catchment area for the raw material is not limited to one agricultural unit, or even only agricultural units within the immediate vicinity of the application site, but that it would serve agricultural operations across a wide area and therefore, the proposed development’s location in the countryside is not demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture.
52. The second issue is that the categories of raw material proposed to be processed at the application site would not necessarily be exclusively limited directly to agricultural operations (for example, category 1 material includes international catering waste and body parts of zoo and circus animals, category 3 includes domestic catering waste and shells from shellfish). Again, this does not demonstrate that the siting of the development in the countryside is essential to the effective operation of agriculture.
53. As stated above, the proposed development is not in accordance with policy W3 of the CSDMP and therefore cannot meet the criteria of policy LP2 which allows for waste development.
54. Policy LP2 also allows for development in the countryside which falls under policy LP5 or LP55. Policy LP5, in principle, supports proposals which assist in the delivery of economic prosperity and job growth to the area. It focuses employment development on allocated sites but also allows for development on unallocated Local Employment Sites, and subject to a number of criteria being complied with, on sites which are not allocated and not Local Employment Sites. Additionally, paragraph 84 of the NPPF states “Planning policies and decisions should recognise that sites to meet local business needs… in rural areas may have to be found adjacent to or beyond existing settlements, and in locations that are not well served by public
Page 117 transport. In these circumstances it will be important to ensure that development is sensitive to its surroundings, does not have an unacceptable impact on local roads and exploits any opportunities to make a location more sustainable… The use of previously developed land, and sites that are physically well-related to existing settlements, should be encouraged where suitable opportunities exist”. In order for development to be considered acceptable on unallocated sites and sites which are not Local Employment Sites, policy LP5 requires that:
• there are no suitable or appropriate sites or buildings within allocated sites or within the built up area of the existing settlement; • the scale of the development is commensurate with the scale and character of the existing settlement; • there is no significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, and / or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers; • there is no significant adverse impact on the local highway network; • there is no significant adverse impact on the viability of delivering any allocated employment site; and • opportunities are maximised for modal shift away from the private car.
Each of these six matters is dealt with in the subsequent sections of this report which address the topic areas in detail.
55. Policy LP55 allows for non-residential development in the countryside provided that four criteria are complied with. The first criteria of this policy requires that the rural location is justifiable either to maintain or enhance the rural economy or due to the proximity to existing established businesses or natural features. The applicant has argued that this facility meets the requirements of policy LP2 as being demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture and therefore is justifiable to maintain and enhance the rural economy. As set out above, it is not considered that the proposed development is required to be in a countryside location for the effective operation of agriculture and therefore it is not agreed that the rural location is justifiable to maintain or enhance the rural economy. The location of the proposed development does not relate to an existing established business or natural feature. It is therefore concluded that the rural location of the proposed development is not justified in this case and as such, part (a) of policy LP55 is therefore not complied with.
56. Parts (b), (c) and (d) of policy LP55 requires that the location of the proposed development is suitable in terms of accessibility; would not conflict with neighbouring uses; and is of a size and scale commensurate with the proposed use and with the rural character of the location. These issues will be assessed and discussed in subsequent sections of this report below.
57. Whilst, in light of paragraph 6.45 of the CSDMP, it might be possible to accept that certain types of waste facility are acceptable in open countryside locations, the requirement for such a location has not been sufficiently justified or demonstrated in this case and therefore it is not possible to conclude that as a matter of principle, this development proposal requires an
Page 118 open countryside location or that this particular open countryside location is justifiable or acceptable.
Highways and Transport
58. The NPPF, CSDMP policy DM14 and CLLP policy LP13 set the context for consideration of highways and transport issues, encouraging a sustainable approach to transport and ensuring development does not cause adverse impacts to the road network or highway safety. In addition, CLLP policy LP5 requires proposals to maximise opportunities for modal shift away from the private car.
59. The site is proposed to operate 24 hours a day for 5.5 days a week. Staff are proposed to be employed to work across four 12 hour shifts with the Category 1 processing plant staffing pattern being 06:00 to 18:00 and 18:00 to 06:00 and the Category 3 processing plant staffing pattern being 07:00 to 19:00 and 19:00 to 07:00.
60. A Transport Assessment has been undertaken and submitted with this application which states that the proposed development would generate 75 arrivals and 75 departures (150 two-way trips) of Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) per day and 82 two-way vehicles trips associated with staff movements, giving a total of 232 two-ways vehicle trips a day. Given the proposed shift patterns, the staff related vehicle movements would not all occur at the same time.
61. The Transport Assessment states that control measures, such as telematics on HGVs, are currently in place at the applicant’s site at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe which ensure vehicles arrive at different times of the day, in order to control traffic at the site and achieve production targets. These control measures are expected to continue at the proposed development site. In addition to this, the Transport Assessment states that a new control measure is proposed to be introduced in this case to ensure that if more than two HGVs are waiting at the A46 / Folly Lane junction, then further HGVs are to proceed to either the Halfway House Roundabout or the A1133 / A46 / Drove Lane roundabout and then return, to ensure that the junction is kept clear at all times. All HGVs are expected to travel via the A46. If planning permission is granted, it is recommended that these control measures are secured through a s.106 legal agreement.
62. It is proposed to upgrade the section of Folly Lane between the A46 junction and a proposed new HGV access to the site, such that it would be widened to a minimum of 6 metres wide and constructed to highway standards. This is proposed to be undertaken under a section 38 agreement. The new access to the site is proposed to be designed such that HGVs can only turn into the site when accessing from Folly Lane via the A46 and that HGVs can only turn left out of the site towards the A46. It is proposed that no HGVs would access the site from the south on Folly Lane. The existing access to the site on Folly Lane is proposed to be retained and utilised for accessing the proposed staff and visitor car parking area. An existing farm access
Page 119 track runs across the site from this access point and this is proposed to be retained and cordoned off from the main processing site by a 2.4 metre high paladin perimeter fence with security gates operational to the north and south of this track.
63. A clean lorry park is proposed to be located in the northern part of the site. This lorry park is proposed to be surrounded to the north and west boundaries by a 2 metre high close boarded timber fence to provide screening of any headlights within this area from vehicles travelling along the adjoining A46.
64. A significant number of representations to this planning application have raised concerns and queries regarding the impacts of the proposed development on the A46 and the surrounding roads. Such representations have been received from parties such as local residents, Parish Councils, North Kesteven District Council, Newark and Sherwood District Council, Nottinghamshire County Council and a Nottinghamshire County Councillor. These issues largely fall into three categories: impacts on the capacity of the A46 given the existing volume of traffic; impacts on the use of the junction across the A46 to Folly Lane in light of road safety issues; and concerns regarding the use of minor / country roads by HGVs and their ability to accommodate such traffic.
65. The A46 is a trunk road and part of the strategic road network and as such, Highways England has been consulted on this application. Highways England initially responded to state that conditions were recommended to be attached if planning permission was granted for the proposed development. These conditions related to external drainage, the installation of the perimeter fence and a requirement for the installation of an anti-dazzle fence along the northern site boundary. The Regulation 25 further information provided details in relation to each of the matters raised by Highways England in their request for conditions and they have subsequently confirmed acceptability of the proposed measures. If planning permission is granted, it is recommended that these measures relating to drainage, perimeter fencing and the installation of a close boarded timber fence to prevent dazzle from HGV headlights are secured through suitably worded planning conditions.
66. In light of the nature of the objections on highways grounds received to the application, further discussions took place between Highways England and the case officer and further consideration was requested of Highways England, with particular reference to the volume of traffic; the accident record at the Folly Lane junction; visibility at the Folly Lane right turn junction; visibility at the junction exiting Folly Lane, the accident record at the Potter Hill Road junction; and where traffic would be routed if the A46 is closed between the Winthorpe and Halfway House roundabouts. Whilst Highways England considered these issues, it was requested that the originally submitted representation be temporarily withdrawn, pending the outcome of the further consideration. (It is noted that Witham St Hughs Parish Council raised an issue regarding Highways England withdrawing its
Page 120 original submission, however, this was a temporary measure whilst further consideration was given to the queries raised by the case officer, as a result of objections received.) It is understood that Highways England undertook a site visit and considered these issues further and responded to state that there was no evidence to suggest that the proposed development would result in an increase in accidents at the A46 / Folly Lane junction and the original response to the planning application was reinstated.
67. Lincolnshire County Council Highways were also consulted on the application and have not raised any objections either, subject to the imposition of a s.106 legal agreement relating to the improvements to Folly Lane.
68. In relation to the concerns raised regarding the use of local roads by HGVs, this could be controlled through a suitably worded s.106 legal agreement which sets out a routeing agreement which the applicant would be bound by and would also include measures, such as those suggested by the applicant, to control the arrival of HGVs at the site and to ensure that vehicles are not queueing on the A46 to arrive at the site. This would ensure that HGVs could only access and leave the site via the A46 / Folly Lane junction and that the local road network would not be used by HGVs associated with the site. In addition to this, the Regulation 25 further information included two contingency strategies in the event of the closure of the A46. If planning permission was to be granted, it is recommended that a s.106 legal agreement is used to secure delivery, routeing and access arrangements to the site.
69. Despite the volume of concern raised locally regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development on the capacity and safety of the A46, Highways England has considered these issues and advised that the proposed development would not have a detrimental impact on the users of the A46 and that there is no evidence to suggest that there would be an increase in accidents at the A46 / Folly Lane junction. Lincolnshire County Council Highways have raised no objections to the proposed development on highways grounds either. It therefore cannot be concluded that the proposed development is unacceptable in relation to highway capacity and highway safety and these are not grounds upon which planning permission could be refused.
70. Whilst the NPPF, CSDMP policy DM13 and CLLP policies LP5 and LP13 all seek to maximise opportunities for sustainable transport modes and options, it is considered that the nature of this type of development proposal relies on transport of raw material by road based vehicles and therefore this mode of transport is acceptable and justified in this case. However, given the location of the site and the lack of public transport opportunities, all staff are likely to access the site using private cars, with the potential exception of apprentices, who are proposed to be collected in a mini-bus and taken to and from the site. The reliance on private cars for 130 Full Time Equivalent members of staff could be addressed, at least to an extent, through the implementation of a Travel Plan which sought to encourage measures such
Page 121 as car sharing. If planning permission is granted, it is recommended that it is subject to a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Travel Plan to minimise journeys by private car, in order that the development would not conflict with CSDMP policy DM13, CLLP policies LP5 and LP13 and criterion M1 of the National Design Guide.
Landscape and Visual Impact
71. The NPPF, CSDMP policy DM6 and CLLP policy LP17 seek to protect and enhance landscape character, recognising the intrinsic character of the countryside and features and views which contribute positively to the area. The design of new developments can play an important role in their landscape and visual impacts and the NPPF, CSDMP policy DM3 and CLLP policy LP26 require development proposals to be of a high standard of design. In addition, the recently published National Design Guide states that developments should be well designed and integrated into their surroundings, so they relate well to them, taking into account landform, topography, landscape character and setting, views and landscape and visual impacts (characters C1 and I1).
72. The application site lies within the landscape sub-area of “Terrace Sandlands” as defined in the North Kesteven Landscape Character Assessment (2007) (LCA). The LCA states that woodland is a dominant feature of this landscape and plays a key role in defining landscape character. It states that a ridge of sand and gravel deposits circles the farmland south of Norton Disney Hall. This is a prominent feature and partially defines the character area boundary. It also states that key vistas within this sub-area are often those looking out onto other sub-areas, with the most impressive vistas being those from the Norton woodland ridge over the lower vale. Sand and gravel extraction infrastructure is noted to be noticeable on the Norton woodlands ridge, and this is stated to detract from “an otherwise quite intimate and varied part of the landscape character sub- area”.
73. The LCA highlights the A46 corridor as a pressure for change and landscape detractor, with land immediately to the north and south of this main route representing a corridor of increased activity, vulnerable to development pressure within the landscape. The A46 dual carriageway in itself is noted as a considerable detractor in the landscape. The corridor is stated to include some significant detractors, with large modern commercial and storage buildings but the LCA notes that these are currently scattered in nature, interrupting longer views out to the wider countryside. The LCA states that this scattered nature could be lost if large buildings continue to be developed along the A46 route. Opportunities are identified in this sub- area for woodland planting along the A46 corridor.
74. Whilst representations have made reference to the site being within an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, it is not within any statutory landscape designation.
Page 122 75. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was undertaken and submitted with this application and following a request for further information, an Addendum to the LVIA was submitted as part of the package of Regulation 25 further information. Concerns were raised in the Regulation 25 request for further information that the LVIA underplayed the impacts of the proposed development and additional viewpoints were requested to be considered.
76. The LVIA states that the topography of the site ranges between 35 metres Above Ordnance Datum (AOD) and 38 metres AOD, whereas in the wider area the topography slopes to under 10 metres AOD. The topography of the study area is stated to vary between 0 and 40 metres AOD, across a wide ranging rolling countryside, with an open character. The application site is described as being located on a locally prominent terrace. Woodland blocks at the edges of and within the site are stated to partially screen the existing farm buildings from the majority of views in the landscape. The landscape is stated to have a medium sensitivity.
77. The LVIA states that the sensitivity of visual receptors of the proposed development range from a low to a high sensitivity. For example, local residents, users of the local Public Rights of Way, visitors to Hill Holt Wood and road users of some local roads have a high sensitivity; there is a medium sensitivity of people using other local roads; and a low sensitivity of road users on the A46 to Folly Lane slip road.
78. The LVIA initially considered impacts on 13 visual receptors, however, as part of the Regulation 25 further information Addendum, some of these viewpoints were considered in greater detail and additional viewpoints were added and considered. Viewpoints were considered to the north, east, south and west of the application site. The Addendum also considered potential impacts in relation to the proposed Lancaster Bomber landmark (which was granted planning permission by North Kesteven District Council in April 2018 and is currently under construction).
79. The LVIA states that a landscape and mitigation strategy is proposed to ameliorate potential adverse impacts of the development proposals. This is stated to include measures such as the retention of existing landscaping features where possible; the layout, design and finished structure of the development adopting forms, materials and styles consistent with the surrounding landscape character; building colours and finishes to minimise visual impacts; and a native planting strategy along the north, east, south and west site boundaries. The LVIA Addendum included a landscape scheme (entitled Bat Mitigation Plan) which shows areas of proposed planting and areas where existing landscaping is proposed to be retained. This plan also shows that a significant proportion of the trees and vegetation adjacent to the existing farm buildings would be removed, despite the LVIA stating that this would be retained. The proposed planting along the western and southern boundaries of the site, particularly adjacent to the proposed processing buildings and two 15 metre and one 35 metre chimney stacks, are shown to consist of an intermittent line of single trees. North Kesteven
Page 123 District Council’s Trees Officer has stated that the proposed landscaping scheme has a high reliance on the use of Silver Birch, which would have limited screening effects and that there are limited evergreen species in the proposals. The effectiveness of the landscaping scheme, with specific reference to views from the south and south west, is likely to be significantly less than asserted in the LVIA and would take many years to reach maturity.
80. It is worth drawing out some of the statements in both the LVIA and the Addendum in the consideration of landscape and visual impacts. Paragraph 7.11 of LVIA states that “The scale of the proposed buildings would not dominate this local landscape due to the retention of the taller elements of the existing mature features. The small woodland block adjacent to the existing farm building is to be retained which is also supported by external and off-site woodland areas”. Paragraph 7.14 states “The scale of the proposed buildings would create a development which features in some short ranging and some longer distance views. However, they would not necessarily dominate these views, with only the taller elements of the built form featuring above the existing and retained woodland groups, supported by external and off-site woodland areas”. These statements are not entirely accurate, as the westerly portion of the existing vegetation surrounding the existing farm dwellings would need to be removed to facilitate the proposed surface water attenuation pond and staff car park, and the existing hedgerow along the western site boundary adjacent to the proposed processing buildings is not of a scale or height to screen these buildings, which are proposed to stand to a maximum height of 14.6 metres, together with two chimney stacks of 15 metres in height and one of 35 metres in height.
81. The majority of existing vegetation viewed from the south and south west of the site, lies beyond, that is either to the north or east, of where the built elements of the development are proposed, and therefore offers no screening provision. The proposed development would largely sit “in front” of this vegetation, including the “taller elements” referred to in the LVIA and Addendum, in these views.
82. Paragraph 8.13 of the LVIA states that the development would result in a major adverse significance of effect on the site itself and “the chimney stack and other taller elements of the development would remain a detractor in the landscape”. Paragraph 8.14 states that on completion and operation the development would result in a moderate / minor adverse impact on landscape character of the study area. Paragraph 8.15 states that there would be some adverse effects upon the character of the wider landscape, caused mainly by construction activity. The LVIA assumes a construction phase period of one year, whereas the further information submitted suggests that it could take between four and five years until the site is fully operational and there is therefore significant scope that the impacts of the construction phase of the development have been underestimated by the LVIA.
Page 124 83. The bulk and scale of the “chimney stack and other taller elements of the development” are such that they would be very prominent on this ridge and in the landscape, particularly when viewed from the south and south west. As stated above, one chimney is proposed to be 35 metres in height and two are proposed at 15 metres in height. The two processing building are each 100 metres long by 30 metres wide and have maximum ridge heights of between 13.3 and 14.6 metres. They are therefore very large and tall structures in this location. It is accepted that views from the north and from the east would be largely screened by existing vegetation, although in closer range, for example, from the edge of Hill Holt Wood or from Hill Holt Farm, there would be glimpses of the main buildings associated with the proposed development though the vegetation. From these locations, the 35 metre high chimney stack would also be clearly visible.
84. Paragraph 8.16 LVIA states that landscape impacts would be predominantly localised and are within the context of existing agricultural developments, tall built form elements, such as local wind turbines, and other suburban influences such as main roads directly adjacent to the west of the site and other local roads which accommodate large vehicular movements such as lorries and tractors.
85. The wind turbine referred to lies within 500 metres, to the south west, of the application site. It is understood to have a hub height of 60 metres and a height to the blade tip of 86.45 metres. This turbine was granted planning permission on appeal. In the appeal decision notice the Inspector, notwithstanding that the appeal was allowed because the benefits of the turbine were considered to outweigh the harm caused, concluded “there would be a significant adverse impact on landscape character and visual amenity within 1.5 – 2km of the site” and the Inspector noted “the tranquil nature of the area away from the A46”.
86. The Addendum draws several references to the large agricultural buildings at Wheatley Farm, located to the west of the application site on the opposite side of the A46. There are undoubtedly large agricultural buildings associated with that farm, although a review of the planning applications for these shows that these buildings are not as large or as tall (as a maximum height) as the proposed processing buildings in this case; these buildings are located on much lower ground (approximately 15 metres AOD); and are not located in a prominent ridge location. It is not considered that they are directly comparable to the proposed development, and even if it was to be concluded that those structures have adverse landscape and visual impacts, that provides no justification for allowing other development which would have adverse impacts. The presence of what might be considered to be an existing detractor in the landscape does not diminish the need for any new development to be required to not have harmful impacts. The cumulative impacts of large structures in the landscape can in itself cause harm. Indeed, the LCA specifically advises against the proliferation of large structures along the A46 corridor in this area.
Page 125 87. It is noted that Newark and Sherwood District Council (which granted planning permission for the agricultural buildings at Wheatley Farm) has objected to this application on the grounds that it would cause significant visual harm to the character of the open countryside, due to its large scale and industrial nature.
88. The proposed development, particularly the processing buildings, 15 metre stacks and 35 metre stack would be highly visible features on a prominent ridge, particularly from the south and south west. 89. The lighting of the lorry park and processing area would also be visible features in the landscape and this has not adequately been taken into account in the LVIA. It is accepted that there is street lighting associated with the A46, however, the proposed development would extend the area of lighting into an area which is not currently lit and this would inevitably have an impact on the skyline and dark sky in the locality. The issue of lighting is considered further in the lighting section of this report below.
90. North Kesteven District Council has objected to the proposed development due to a significant degree of harm to the character and appearance of the countryside and landscape sub-area, compounded by the proposed external lighting.
91. A very large number of representations have been received from local residents, Parish Councils and people living further afield, raising objections and concerns regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development on the forthcoming Lancaster Bomber landmark. This development was granted planning permission by North Kesteven District Council in April 2018 and the documentation supporting that application, together with the officer’s report to North Kesteven District Council’s Planning Committee, make it clear that the development constituted a landmark and that it was not in itself a tourist attraction or facility to be visited. No provision is made within the site for visitors and planning permission has not been granted for any visitor “viewing” areas or facilities since the original decision was made to grant permission for the landmark in April 2018. The assessment of potential impacts on this landmark must therefore be in relation to it as a landmark to be viewed within the landscape, and not as a place to visit. It was stated in that application that the site was chosen to deliver the aim of providing an installation of the Lancaster with the impression that it is in flight and that it could be interpreted as “returning home” to the former RAF Swinderby base.
92. The site of the landmark is to the south west of the current application site. The majority of people would experience the installation when travelling from the south, predominantly along the A46 but also from local roads and Public Rights of Way. The LVIA Addendum refers to the wind turbine at Brills Farm and the quarry-related HGV movements to the south of the landmark diluting the rural qualities of the area and acknowledges that the view would become more active as a result of the proposed development and the landmark, although it is stated that as the vegetation has matured the landmark will largely be set against a treed background. It states that the key designed
Page 126 viewing location for the landmark is the A46 and that these receptors are fast moving, transient trunk road users and therefore their experience of the overall development would be greatly reduced and once in position to view the landmark, they will likely be against the open sky due to the relationship between the landmark and the proposed development.
93. These conclusions regarding the potential impacts on the landmark are not broadly disagreed with and it is considered that the majority of views of the landmark would not primarily have the proposed development in the background, rather it would be offset, although the proposed development would form part of the overall landscape.
94. It is considered that the LVIA adopts an approach of consideration of impacts in relation to the study area as a whole and as such, the lack of widespread, significant impacts from the north, and to an extent, the east and west, are used to diminish the significantly harmful landscape and visual impacts of the development from the south and south west in particular, as an overall approach appears to have been be taken. The harm caused in relation to landscape and visual impacts from the south and south west is not diminished (and should not be assessed as being diminished) by there being relatively minimal impacts from the north. It is considered that the LVIA places too much emphasis on existing vegetation either screening or providing a backdrop to the proposed development, and too much emphasis on the impact of the proposed planting and the human influences already located within the landscape, as detractors, such as the wind turbine and the agricultural buildings at Wheatley Farm, in order to conclude that the landscape and visual impacts would be acceptable. This approach is not considered to be appropriate. Whilst it is accepted that from the north, there would be limited landscape and visual impacts, the same cannot be said from the south and south west. The quantity and effectiveness of the proposed landscape screening is seriously questioned but nevertheless, the principle of relying on planting and landscaping to screen (or at least partially screen) this type and scale of development in such a prominent location to enable a conclusion of reduced landscape and visual impacts, is not acceptable. It is therefore concluded that the proposed development, due to its size, scale, height, bulk and location, would have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts, harming the character and appearance of the open countryside, particularly when viewed from the south and south west, and is therefore not in accordance with policies DM3 and DM6 of the CSDMP and policies LP17 and LP26 of the CLLP.
Odour and Air Quality
95. The NPPF, CSDMP policy DM3, CLLP policies LP5 and LP26 require that all new development is of a high standard and that the amenities of existing and future land users must not be adversely affected. Odour and air quality are key issues in relation to the proposed development. An Odour Impact Assessment (OIA), Odour Management Plan (OMP) and Air Quality Impact Assessment (AQIA) have been submitted with this application. The OIA and AQIA considered both 25 metre and 35 metre composite stacks (the
Page 127 application documentation states that a 35 metre composite stack is proposed). The OIA and AQIA were both revised as a result of the Regulation 25 request for further information, to undertake a broader assessment.
96. North Kesteven District Council commissioned an Odour and Air Quality Consultant to review the documents submitted with this application and to respond to queries raised by the District and County Councils in relation to this matter.
97. Turning first to the issue of odour. In July 2018, the Institute of Air Quality Management (IAQM) published a document entitled “Guidance on the assessment of odour for planning”. This document provides guidance regarding the assessment of odour. It states that the field of odour impact assessment is a developing one and that odour assessment approaches “require some degree of professional judgement from a competent and suitably experienced air quality professional in order to reach a conclusion on the overall significance of odour impact”. The IAQM document goes on to explain the subjective nature of odour and how adverse effects of odour are concerned with the negative appraisal by a human receptor of the odour exposure, stating that this appraisal can occur over a matter of seconds or minutes, and involves many complex psychological and socio-economic factors. It states that “loss of amenity … does not equate directly to nuisance (in its general meaning) and significant loss of amenity will often occur at directly lower levels of odour exposure than would constitute a statutory nuisance”. In terms of EIA assessments, it advises that where the overall effect is greater than “slight adverse”, the effect is likely to be considered significant.
98. The Environment Agency guidance “How to comply with your permit – H4 Odour Management” (2011) (H4 guidance) sets out odour detection thresholds and benchmark levels. This is a recognised and accepted approach to the assessment of odour impacts. It states that 1 OUE/m3 (that is one odour unit) is the point of odour detection. It also states that a rapidly fluctuating odour is often more noticeable than a steady background odour at a low concentration. The H4 guidance sets out the benchmark levels, based on the 98th percentile of hourly average concentrations of odour modelled over a year at a site / installation boundary, as follows:
• 1.5 odour units for most offensive odours, for example: o processes involving decaying animal or fish remains; o processes involving septic effluent or sludge; o biological landfill odours
• 3 odour units for moderately offensive odours, for example: o intensive livestock rearing; o sugar beet processing; o fat frying (food processing); o well aerated green waste composting
Page 128 • 6 odour units for less offensive odours, for example: o brewery; o coffee roasting; o confectionary; o bakery.
99. Any odours above these benchmark levels indicate the likelihood of unacceptable odour pollution. The H4 guidance also states that where a result is close to the benchmark level, it suggests measures are likely to be required to minimise odours. The H4 guidance also acknowledges that short or infrequent episodes of very high odours that are averaged out by the modelling, would need to be considered separately.
100. Objections in relation to odour and the impacts of odour on local residents, business and visitors to the local area have been raised in a very large number of the representations made to this application by parties such as local residents, Parish Councils, Hill Holt Wood and a joint representation, including Witham Prospect School, from local service and facility providers for people with severe learning disabilities, including Autism Spectrum Disorder and sensory processing difficulties. Many of the representations raise concerns about odour impacts on living standards, health and well- being, family time, impacts on leisure and tourism and refer to the existing odours experienced locally from the sugar beet factory at Newark. Specific references have been made in representations to potential impacts on people with Autism Spectrum Disorder in light of a range of services and facilities provided within the local area for people with this disorder. In addition to this, reference is made to odour from the delivery lorries, which it is stated that the applicant described at public meetings as an “insurmountable problem”, and from spillages on the roads. Problems with odour experienced in relation to the applicant’s existing operation at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe are also cited. Representations have also been received querying that if the development is considered to be acceptable at the application site in relation to odour, why is it not acceptable at any of the alternative locations considered.
101. The OIA considers background levels of odour and then assesses the potential impacts of the proposed development, including those associated with specific processes and the delivery of raw material to the site, on receptors within the surrounding area. A total of 18 receptors were considered, including a number at the neighbouring Hill Holt Wood, at Brills Farm (to the south of the site) and at South Potter Hill Farm (to the west, on the opposite side of the A46 to the Folly Lane junction). In relation to the arrival of delivery vehicles, the OIA considers the possibility that an HGV might have to wait at the central reservation on the A46 prior to turning right into Folly Lane.
102. The OIA states that odour impacts have been assessed in the study on the basis that they relate to high sensitivity receptors, in accordance with the IAQM guidance. In relation to the consideration given to potential receptors at Hill Holt Wood, it is stated that there are various activities carried out at
Page 129 Hill Holt Wood (such as a biomass boiler, compost toilet, bonfires) that mean the location has a high background odour. It has been noted that there is a discrepancy in the OIA, OMP and AQIA in relation to the assessment of odour on an artist’s studio and residence at Hill Holt Wood, however, the modelling of impacts (as shown in Table 9 of the OIA) appears to consider it in the correct location, whereas the figures showing the location of the receptor contain the error. This has been raised with the applicant who has confirmed that the error lies in the annotation labels in the documents, but that the impacts shown in Table 9 are correct and are assessed appropriately.
103. A number of representations called for delivery vehicles to be fully sealed, however, it is not possible to transport ABP material in fully sealed, airtight containers because the raw material releases gases which would pressurise a sealed container, leading to health and safety issues. Consequently, delivery vehicles are a source of odour and have been taken into consideration as such.
104. In the request for further information under Regulation 25 of the EIA Regulations, the County Council stated that the “application site sits within the context of a range of service provisions for people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, who may have hyper-sensitivity to odour, the nearest of which is the social enterprise, Hill Holt Wood”. The applicant is then requested to “provide commentary within the Environmental Statement on the impacts of the proposed development in relation to these services, with particular reference to Hill Holt Wood”. In relation to this a Clinical Psychology Assessment Report (CPAR) has been submitted which considers potential impacts of odour (based on, and as set out in, the OIA and OMP) on the users of Hill Holt Wood. The authors of the CPAR undertook an interview with the Chief Executive Office and Head of Education at Hill Holt Wood as part of the information gathering for the report, to gain an understanding of the facilities and activities at Hill Holt Wood and the issues of concern.
105. The CPAR provides a review of current literature and research in relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder and olfactory (sense of smell) sensitivity. The report acknowledges that there is an atypical olfactory response to odour in people with Autism Spectrum Disorder but that the research is inconclusive regarding the outcomes or impacts of this. It states that those with Autism Spectrum Disorder detect odours sooner, have more difficulties identifying odours, have poorer ability to discriminate between different odours and are unconventional in how odours are judged, which may not be in line with traditional views of odour as “pleasant” or not.
106. The CPAR states that a stringent OMP, combined with the anticipated negligible odour profile of the site would result in it being unlikely that the development would have an adverse effect on learners at Hill Holt Wood. Recommendations are made within the CPAR for the implementation of a process of discussions and review between the applicants and Hill Holt Wood so that any arising concerns regarding olfaction could be identified
Page 130 and responded to by the applicant and that this will include stakeholder liaison meetings.
107. Public Health England have been consulted on this application with a specific request to consider potential impacts on people with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Public Health England raised concerns regarding the application as originally submitted, and in relation to the further information submitted, stated that odours can cause nuisance even when the substances that cause the smells are not in themselves harmful to health. Public Health England state that it cannot assess the impacts of odour on people with Autism Spectrum Disorder and that specialist advice should be considered, including potentially a peer review of the CPAR. It is clear from the background research into this issue that the research which has been undertaken in relation to Autism Spectrum Disorder and odour is inconclusive. Given the credentials of the authors of the CPAR (both authors are stated to be clinical psychologists with extensive experience in the NHS and private practice, with specialisms in Autism Spectrum Disorder), it is considered that if the OIA and OMP are found to be acceptable, as a basis for the CPAR conclusions, the findings of the CPAR should be accepted.
108. As a point of note, in the representation made on behalf of Witham Prospect School and other service providing establishments a query is raised as to why the local planning authority had been involved in the instruction of the authors of the CPAR. This representation is in relation to the statement in the CPAR that Witham Prospect School had been excluded from the assessment report for two reasons, one of which was that the authors were requested by the Local Authority to focus specifically on Hill Holt Wood, as this is directly next to the proposed plant and hence most likely to be affected. To clarify, the local planning authority had no involvement in the selection, commissioning or detailing of the brief in relation to the CPAR. Indeed, the only communication in this regard was the wording of the Regulation 25 request for further information (provided above), and as can be seen, there was no specific exclusion of any of the other service providers in the area.
109. The OIA considers potential odour impacts at Witham Prospect School, which is a care and education facility to meet the needs of children aged between 11 and 18 who have severe and profound learning disabilities, including those on the autism spectrum. This school lies approximately 1.8km to the south east of the application site. In relation to the location of the Witham Prospect School, the OIA states that it is predicted that there would be an odour concentration of 0.18 OUE/m3 as a 98th percentile, that the school does not lie down wind of the proposed facility and that there are other sources of non-domestic odour in the vicinity which may affect pupils at the school. The odour impact is concluded to be a negligible adverse impact at this school.
110. In the assessment of potential odour impacts at the dwelling nearest to the central reservation of the A46 (South Potter Hill Farm) where delivery
Page 131 vehicles may wait to cross the carriageway prior to entering the site, the OIA concludes that it is highly unlikely there will be a significant odour exposure but states that to minimise any potential magnitude for any emission, it will be necessary to manage vehicle movements across the A46 avoiding morning or evening rush hour periods. The Odour and Air Quality Consultant has advised that the approach taken to the potential impacts on this dwelling is not clear as to whether it relates to one vehicle waiting at the central reservation or two, as is allowed for in the Transport Assessment. However, the Consultant’s advice is that nevertheless, the conclusions of the OIA appear to be reasonable and that any impacts could be controlled through measures in the OMP. OMPs are not designed to be static documents and so if planning permission is granted, it should be subject to a condition which requires the monitoring and management of odour through an OMP, with amendments made to the OMP to address any issues arising. For example, in relation to this matter, it could be that there is a requirement for no more than one delivery vehicle to wait at the central reservation, rather than the proposal in the Transport Assessment that up to two vehicles could wait to turn into Folly Lane. Further delivery vehicles would then be sent north along the A46, to then return on the south bound carriageway entering Folly Lane as a left turn junction and avoiding the need to wait in the central reservation.
111. A query has been raised with the applicant regarding the proposed system of routing high-intensity odours to the plant boiler in the event of an unplanned shutdown or failure of a recuperative thermal oxidiser, as the OMP currently contains two possible options. The applicant has stated that the interlinking between the thermal systems is still under consideration but that the outcome would be the same as included in the assessment. In the interests of clarity, this matter can be addressed through a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a revised OMP which includes details of the proposed system. It is recommended that if planning permission is granted it is subject to such a condition, which also includes the provision regarding monitoring and management, as recommended above.
112. The OIA also considers potential odour impacts at eight possible alternative sites which have been considered as part of the application (it is noted that the OIA does not consider all of the possible alternative sites put forward by the applicant). In all but one of the sites, it is concluded that the potential odour impacts would result in the site being discounted as a suitable alternative location. In relation to one site, land west of Grange Lane, Newark, it is concluded that it may be feasible to locate the development on this site, but it is stated to be more likely than not that locating the application site on this land may prevent the full development potential taking place across much of the site. In relation to the discounting of the remaining sites, it appears that the OIA has used a benchmark threshold of 1.5 OUE/m3 in relation to all neighbouring land users. The IAQM Guidance sets out the different levels of sensitivity for different receptors and in relation to places of work and commercial premises, it is stated that these are medium sensitivity receptors. As such, the Consultant has advised that
Page 132 a benchmark threshold for medium sensitivity receptors could generally be 3.0 OUE/m3 98th% 1-hour concentration. As a result, the Consultant advises that a larger part of the land west of Grange Lane, Newark alternative site could arguably be developed than is inferred in the OIA and the land at Hemswell Cliff could also support the proposed development as an alternative location. These alternative sites are considered further in the relevant section below in this report.
113. Overall, the OIA concludes that the proposed development would not have unacceptable odour impacts on sensitive receptors in the surrounding area and that odour impacts would be less on the basis of a 35 metre composite stack than with a 25 metre composite stack. As stated above, the IAQM Guidance states that in relation to EIA assessments, where the overall effect is greater than “slight adverse”, the effect is likely to be significant. The OIA states that none of the effects are greater than “slight adverse”. The maximum predicted odour concentrations with a 35 metre composite stack at the nearest off-site receptors (two within Hill Holt Wood) are 1.28 OUE/m3 98th%, and so whilst these levels fall close to the benchmark threshold of 1.5 OUE/m3, they are nevertheless slightly below and are not considered to be significant.
114. In relation to air quality, the AQIA undertakes assessments in relation to nitrogen oxide (NO2), sulphur dioxide (SO2) and particulate matter PM2.5 and PM10. Human receptors within 350 metres of the site and ecological receptors within 50 metres of the site are identified and taken into consideration. Specific reference is made to Hill Holt Wood. In relation to all receptors, the AQIA shows that the 35 metre composite stack would have less of an impact than a 25 metre stack and that any impacts would be negligible at the point of maximum impact.
115. The AQIA also considers five potential alternative sites for the proposed development to be located and concludes that from an air quality perspective, using a 35 metre stack, the development could be carried out at any of the five locations.
116. Overall, the OIA, OMP and AQIA are considered to be appropriately undertaken and the conclusions are reasonable and valid. On this basis, the findings of the CPAR are also considered to be acceptable. Therefore, notwithstanding the concerns raised by Hill Holt Wood, the group of service providers including Witham Prospect School and a very significant number of representations received, and subject to the recommended condition regarding the submission, approval and implementation of an OMP, including provisions for monitoring and subsequent revisions as necessary if planning permission is granted, it is concluded that the proposed development would not be likely to have unacceptable adverse odour or air quality impacts on nearby sensitive receptors and as such is in accordance with policies DM3, LP5 and LP26 in this regard.
Page 133 Noise
117. The NPPF, CSDMP policy DM3 and CLLP policies LP5 and LP26 require that all new development is of a high standard and that the amenities of existing and future land users must not be adversely affected. These policies are of relevance in relation to the issue of noise.
118. Objections have been received in relation to noise, including from local residents, Parish Councils and Hill Holt Wood.
119. A Noise Assessment has been submitted as part of this application which sets out the baseline noise conditions and assesses impacts in relation to construction activities and the proposed operation of the development. A wide variety of sources of noise from the site are considered, including external vehicle movements, and predicted noise levels at five identified receptors are established.
120. In order to establish the baseline noise conditions two surveys were undertaken, one between 15 and 18 September 2017 (a weekend period) and a second between 22 and 27 September 2017 (a midweek period). Three monitoring locations were used, one at the southern boundary of the site, one adjacent to the A46, to the north east of the site, and one on the boundary of Hill Holt Wood, to the east of the site. The Noise Assessment states that these are considered to be representative of the noise environment at the five receptor sites. The soundscape at two of the monitoring locations is described as road traffic noise from the A46 and at one location it was distant road traffic noise from the A46. The noise predictions are stated to be based on a worst case scenario.
121. During the proposed construction phase of the development, site clearance works are considered, together with piling, bulk excavation and substructure construction and works. The Noise Assessment acknowledges that it is inevitable that with any project of this nature, there will be some disturbance caused to those living or working nearby if appropriate mitigation is not employed, however, this is localised, intermittent and temporary. The construction phase of the proposed development is predicted to have no impact on any of the five receptor sites.
122. The Noise Assessment considers a range of noise emitting sources during the proposed operational phase of the development. The operational noise assessment has considered both day-time and night-time operation of the site. At four of the receptor locations no impacts are predicted during the day-time and only negligible impacts are predicted at night-time (it is noted that in all instances a negligible impact is nevertheless below the derived background sound level). At one receptor location, that is Hill Holt Wood, day-time impacts are predicted to be negligible (but below the derived background sound level) and night-time impacts are predicted to be minor. Given the receptors’ high sensitivity this is considered to be a moderate impact. Nevertheless, the night-time rating level at Hill Holt Wood is only predicted to be 3dB(A) above the background sound level and the Noise
Page 134 Assessment states that as the specific sound level and background sound level may be considered low, and the specific sound level is more than 10dB(A) below the existing baseline ambient night-time sound level, no mitigation is required.
123. The Noise Assessment concludes that noise generated by the site would have a low impact during all time periods and that there would be no potential significance of effect. North Kesteven District Council’s Environmental Health Officer has raised no objection to the development in relation to noise.
124. As part of the request for further information in accordance with Regulation 25 of the EIA Regulations, the County Council requested that consideration be given to noise impacts with reference to the site sitting within the context of a range of service provisions for people with Autistic Spectrum Disorder, with particular reference to Hill Holt Wood as the nearest receptor. The Noise Assessment itself does not address this specific matter but the EIA Regulation 25 Request Response by Applicant to LCC document states that the Noise Assessment shows a minor impact during the day-time when students at Hill Holt Wood are in residence but that it would have no discernible impact on the students, particularly with the high background noise from the road. In fact, the Noise Assessment states that the impact during the day-time at Hill Holt Wood would be “negligible”, and as stated above, below derived background sound levels, and so is less than is reported in the Regulation 25 response document. In light of this, and that the potential significance of impact is assessed as “none”, it cannot reasonably be concluded that the proposed development would have detrimental impacts on students with Autism Spectrum Disorder at Hill Holt Wood.
125. Overall, it is concluded that the proposed development would be acceptable in relation to noise, in accordance with policy DM3 of the CSDMP and policies LP5 and LP26 of the CLLP.
Lighting
126. The NPPF, CSDMP policies DM3 and DM6 and CLLP policies LP5 and LP26 require that all new development is of a high standard of design and that the amenities of existing and future land users must not be adversely affected. In addition, policy DM6 of the CSDMP and policy LP17 of the CLLP require consideration of impacts on the landscape, with specific reference to the intrinsic value of the landscape. External lighting has the potential to have impacts in relation to amenity and on the wider landscape. This latter part is recognised in paragraph 180 of the NPPF with reference to impacts on intrinsically dark landscapes.
127. A Lighting Impact Assessment Report was provided as part of the Regulation 25 further information submission. This states that lighting is proposed across the site in relation to Folly Lane and the new access junction; roads, walkways and parking within the site; around the Category 1
Page 135 and Category 3 processing buildings and water treatment plant; and around the clean water holding pond. The Lighting Impact Assessment Report considers the use of adaptive switched or controlled lighting and acknowledges that lighting can be intrusive at night in rural and open countryside locations.
128. All lighting proposed in relation to Folly Lane and the new junction, the lorry and car parking areas, internal access roads, the perimeter of the processing area and the perimeter of the water treatment plant area would be post top mounted lights with a column height of 10 metres. The lighting around the perimeter of the clean water attenuation pond is proposed to stand to a height of 6 metres. Other lighting immediately adjacent to the processing buildings and around the “internal” areas of the site is proposed to be between 6 and 10.5 metres in height. A total of 122 external lights are proposed across the site. The Lighting Impact Assessment Report states that the lighting scheme proposed offers a balance between achieving good lighting levels on the ground and providing environmental mitigation. The Report concludes that with good design and management of the lighting, the effect of the additional lighting on the environment could be kept to an acceptable level, contributing very little to the existing situation in many areas (although which specific areas are not stated).
129. A number of representations have been received which raise concern and objections in relation to the potential lighting impacts of the proposed development, in relation to the existing open countryside and also in relation to potential impacts on bats. Attention has been drawn in some representations to a condition imposed on the planning permission granted by North Kesteven District Council for the Lancaster Bomber landmark on nearby land at Brills Farm, which explicitly prevents the installation of any lighting associated with the landmark for the following reason “To allow the District Planning Authority to assess the potential impact of any such lighting on the character and appearance of the area and ecology on this site in the countryside which is notable for its absence of street lighting and dark skies”. Whilst the current application site is in a different location to the site of the landmark, its close proximity, and more prominent location, mean that the issues raised in this reason justifying the planning condition, are applicable in this case.
130. It is accepted that there is street lighting associated with the A46 in the vicinity and adjacent to the application site, but immediately beyond this road, to the east towards the application site, there is no such lighting and the proposed scheme would introduce a lit development onto this currently unlit, prominent ridge. Other than at the junction with the A46, Folly Lane is an unlit road.
131. It is accepted that it is unlikely that the proposed lighting scheme would have an adverse impact from an environmental health perspective and North Kesteven District Council’s Environmental Health officer has commented that the Lighting Impact Assessment Report indicates that a lighting scheme could meet the limits of the Institute of Lighting Engineers’ E2 “low district
Page 136 brightness” standards. However, the introduction of lighting into an otherwise unlit, prominent, open countryside location would have an impact on the site itself and the surrounding area, drawing attention to this development and causing a lit visual intrusion into this otherwise dark sky location. The facility is proposed to be operated on a 24 hour a day basis, with the potential for HGV movements at any time during that period. Even if the lighting in the proposed lorry park area was controlled by sensors, the lights switching on and off on a potentially continuous basis during the hours of darkness, is not considered to mitigate the impacts of the external lighting, and could potentially exacerbate the harmful impacts.
134. It is appreciated that the external lighting around the clean water holding lagoon is only proposed to be used in emergency situations and therefore this most southern part of the site would not be frequently lit, however, a span of approximately 500 metres from the northern boundary of the site, in a southerly direction, would be lit to a greater or lesser extent during the hours of darkness. This lighting would be visible, especially when viewed from the south, south east and south west.
135. The proposed external lighting of this site would have adverse landscape and visual impacts and would extend the visual intrusion of lighting, already experienced as a result of the lighting along the A46, into an area which currently enjoys dark skies, along a prominent ridge. Views towards the site from Newark Road and Stapleford Road to the south, south east and south west would be particularly impacted, as these are dark, unlit roads, where night skies tend to be darker. The external lighting would draw attention to the presence of this large scale development.
136. The issue of potential impacts from lighting in relation to bats is considered in the natural environment section below.
137. Overall, it is concluded that whilst the proposed external lighting might be acceptable in relation to statutory nuisance matters, it would nevertheless cause adverse landscape and visual impacts across an otherwise unlit site, drawing attention to a large scale development operating 24 hours a day. This is not acceptable and is contrary to CSDMP policies DM3 and DM6 and CLLP policies LP5, LP17 and LP26.
Natural Environment
138. The NPPF, CSDMP policies DM8 and DM9 and CLLP policy LP21 seek to protect, manage and enhance the natural environment, with specific protection afforded to ancient woodland, locally designated nature conservation sites and protected species.
139. The application site itself is not subject to any nature conservation designations, however, there are twelve non-statutory designated sites within 2km of the site. These include Hill Holt Wood Local Wildlife Site (LWS), Hawdin’s Wood LWS, Stapleford Moor LWS, Norton Big Wood LWS, Norton Disney Hall Site of Nature Conservation Importance and Wheatley
Page 137 Hill Verges LWS. Hawdin’s Wood and Norton Big Wood are also Ancient Woodland and Ancient Replanted Woodland.
140. The ES as originally submitted included an Extended Phase 1 Habitat Survey, Bat Surveys, a Breeding Bird Survey and a Wintering Bird Survey. Further information was subsequently submitted following an EIA Regulation 25 request, including an ES Chapter Addendum – Ecology and Nature Conservation, a Breeding Bird Survey and Bat Surveys. The further information was intended to address a number of deficiencies in the original information; to update survey work which was approximately two years old and, in relation to which, records had subsequently been updated; and to complete outstanding survey work.
141. A range of habitats were identified within the site, including mixed plantation woodland, improved grassland and scattered broadleaved trees and hedgerows. These were all assessed as being of local value. A number of the broadleaved trees were identified as having a low bat roost potential. Of the 23 buildings on site, only one (that is the pair of semi-detached houses) was assessed as having high bat roost potential and was considered to be of county value. That building is stated to have been subject to vandalism between the original and the more up to date survey work having been carried out and as such, its suitability to support roosting bats is stated to have deteriorated. Nevertheless, it still has potential and the assessment value has not decreased.
142. Overall, the Breeding Bird Survey and Wintering Bird Survey work undertaken has led the applicant to conclude that the site is of no more than site value.
143. A number of bats surveys have been undertaken at the site during 2018 and 2019 and a data search for bat records was undertaken. The data search provided field records of eleven species of bat within 5km of the site during 2016. A review was also undertaken of the Summary Report of the Nottinghamshire Barbastelle Project which was produced by the Nottinghamshire Bat Group in 2018.
144. The site is considered to be of local value to hedgehog and brown hare.
145. With the exception of matters in relation to bats (which are dealt with below), the ES and further information conclude that there would be between negligible and minor adverse impacts on habitats and species present on the site as a result of the proposed development and that the impacts are not significant. It is nevertheless recommended in the ES that a Construction Environmental Management Plan is provided which follows best practice methodologies to minimise any potential impacts on the surrounding flora and fauna, for example, undertaking removal of vegetation outside the bird nesting season. If planning permission is granted, this can be secured through the imposition of a suitably worded condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Construction Environmental Management Plan.
Page 138 146. The ES and further information states that no detrimental impacts are considered likely in relation to the nearby non-statutory designated sites, as the A46 trunk road separates the nearest LWS (Potter Hill Plantation) from the application site and is considered to act as a buffer and Hill Holt Wood LWS, 300 metres to the east of the application site, is considered to be of such a distance that any impacts on nature conservation as a result of lighting, noise and vibration would be negligible.
147. The ES and Addendum state that there are opportunities for biodiversity gain within the site as a result of the proposed landscaping scheme which are considered to be of minor beneficial impact. The ES also states that any such landscaping scheme would need to be appropriately implemented and managed.
148. Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust has raised two issues of concern regarding the AQIA and potential impacts on the environment. The first issue relates to the lack of consideration of potential ammonia release and its environmental impact. The second issue highlights the problem of existing levels of nutrient nitrogen deposition exceeding critical load rates and the proposed development contributing further to these levels. As a result of these representations, further discussions have taken place with the Odour and Air Quality Consultant commissioned by North Kesteven District Council and with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust to ensure they are appropriately addressed. It is the consultant’s opinion that ammonia is unlikely to be a significant issue in relation to the proposed development, in light of the process measures proposed, such as thermal oxidisation and the use of biofilters. In relation to nutrient nitrogen deposition levels, the consultant has confirmed that the conclusions of the report are factually correct and the results are in accordance with Environment Agency guidance, however, the consultant advised that the potential ecological impacts of the predicted increase in nutrient nitrogen deposition require an ecological judgement. The AQIA acknowledges that existing background loads for nitrogen deposition are 39.76 kg N/ha/year, that the critical load range is 10 to 20 kg N/ha/year and so critical loads are already greatly exceeded. The proposed development is predicted to add further to this, albeit that the additional contribution is described as small. Further to discussions with Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, and given the existing situation of exceedance and the proportionately small additional contribution the proposed development would make, it is not considered that a refusal of planning permission is justified on this ground, providing that if planning permission was granted, it was subject to a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a package of measures to mitigate levels of local nitrogen deposition resulting from the proposed development.
149. All British bats are protected under UK and EU law, however, the Barbastelle bat and its habitats are provided additional legal protection as an Annex II species under the EC Habitats Directive (it is understood that the protection of bats in accordance EU law continues to operate after the UK leaves the EU. International protection is afforded to bats under the Bern Convention).
Page 139 150. Further survey work was undertaken in relation to bats in 2018 and 2019 and at least eight species of bats were recorded at the site foraging, commuting, emerging and returning to a roost. The species of bats recorded included Barbastelle bats, which are nationally rare and recognised locally, nationally and internationally as a priority species for conservation measures (Barbastelle bats are included within the UK Biodiversity Action Plan (UKBAP) and are listed in both Annex II and Annex IV of the EC Habitats Directive); and soprano Pipistrelle bats which are also listed within the UKBAP. One of the buildings on the site (the pair of semi- detached bungalows) was found to support a small number of hibernating Brown Long-Eared bats and an individual roosting Common Pipistrelle bat. All of the other buildings are stated to have a negligible bat roost potential and no survey work was undertaken in relation to these buildings.
151. It is stated in the application that the majority of the trees on the site with bat roost potential occur within the southern area of the site and the woodland blocks within the centre and west of the site, which are stated to be largely retained. Whilst the majority of hedgerows are stated to be retained, it is acknowledged in the submitted documents that direct loss of hedgerows, woodland and scattered trees may result in the loss of foraging and commuting corridors and therefore limit the proportion of the site used by bats. Additionally, it is stated that during the construction phase increased noise, lighting and vibration may result in temporary disturbance to bats, however, it is stated that this is not likely to have any adverse impact upon bats. A Construction Environmental Management Plan is proposed to minimise impacts and include mitigation measures such as further bat survey work, a landscaping strategy and installation of bat boxes. The potential impacts of the construction phase after mitigation are stated to be minor beneficial.
152. In relation to the operational phase of the development, the ES Addendum states that mitigation measures in the form of landscape planting, bat boxes and the provision of a suitable lighting scheme would result in impacts on bats being neutral.
153. Nottinghamshire Bat Group has objected to the approach to, and findings of, the submitted bat survey work and the proposed mitigation measures. Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust support the advice provided by Nottinghamshire Bat Group. Nottinghamshire Bat Group was involved in the Nottinghamshire Barbastelle Project (NBP) which undertook bat surveys very close to the application site, at Hill Holt Wood and Norton Big Wood, from 2015 to 2018. As a result of the NBP studies, the Nottinghamshire Bat Group consider that the bat assemblage and species diversity at Hill Holt Wood and Norton Big Wood is unique within the East Midlands, as these woodlands support at least eleven of the twelve bat species which reside in the region. This includes the nationally rare Barbastelle bats and it is considered that this location is at the northern extent of this species’ UK range. The Barbastelle bat is one of the rarest mammals in the UK and in 2018 was declared by Natural England as one of the twelve British mammal species most threatened with extinction.
Page 140 154. Data currently available as a result of the NBP shows that three Barbastelle bats radio-tagged in 2016 were recorded within a few metres of the application site. Nottinghamshire Bat Group conclude that the application site is within the core sustenance zone, that is the area surrounding a bat roost within which habitat availability and quality will have a significant influence on the resilience and conservation status of the colony using the roost, of the local colony of Barbastelle bats and a further nine species of bats.
155. Given the importance of the locality for bats, and in particular for Barbastelle bats, Nottinghamshire Bat Group advise that the approach adopted in the survey work undertaken by the applicants, in relation to bat activity surveys and emergence and re-entry surveys of the buildings, is inadequate and it is therefore unacceptable. Nottinghamshire Bat Group consider that the application documents underplay the importance of the locality for bats and this has led to the surveys undertaken being inadequate. In addition, some of the equipment used and survey techniques are also questioned, as they are considered to be outdated, inadequate and do not follow modern professional bat survey guidance. As a result, it is advised that the survey results do not adequately represent the bat activity on the site and as such, the proposed mitigation measures would not ensure that there is no detrimental effect on the favourable conservation status of the local bat species in their natural ranges, particularly in relation to Barbastelle bats.
156. Paragraph 175 of the NPPF states that when determining planning applications “if significant harm to biodiversity resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then planning permission should be refused”. CLLP policy LP21 requires that all development should protect, manage and enhance habitats and species, minimise impacts on biodiversity and to seek to deliver a net gain in biodiversity. It states that where there are adverse impacts, permission will only be granted if the benefits of the development clearly outweigh the harm to the habitat and / or species. In relation to mitigation, policy LP21 states that in exceptional cases, where adverse impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, developers will be required to ensure that impacts are appropriately mitigated, with compensation measures towards loss of habitat used only as a last resort where there is no alternative. Where any mitigation or compensation measures are required, they should be in place prior to development activities which may disturb protected or important habitats and species.
157. The proposed development has the potential to have adverse impacts on bats as a result of habitat loss, removal of existing buildings and through disturbance, for example that associated with noise, light and movement, especially as the facility is proposed to operate on a 24 hour basis. No detailed assessment of the proposed external lighting scheme in relation to bats is provided in the submitted documents, but given that it is advised by the Nottinghamshire Bat Group that the levels of bat activities are likely to have been significantly under-recorded, any assessment would need to be
Page 141 undertaken on the basis of adequate and appropriate surveys. It is therefore not possible to conclude that the proposed lighting scheme would not be harmful to bats.
158. In light of the importance of the local area within which the application site lies for bats, including the priority species Barbastelle bats, and the concerns raised by Nottinghamshire Bat Group and cited by Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust, it is considered that it cannot be concluded from the information submitted that the proposed development would not have an adverse impact in relation to bats. As such, a precautionary approach must be adopted in order to ensure that bats, as a protected species, do not encounter adverse impacts as a result of the development. Given that the survey work undertaken is not considered to be adequate, and that it might have significantly under-recorded bat activity, it cannot be concluded that any proposed mitigation or compensation measures (including those in relation to external lighting), as set out in the application documents would have the result of maintaining (or enhancing) the favourable conservation status of the local bats species in their natural ranges. The proposed development is therefore not in accordance with paragraph 175 of the NPPF or policy LP21 of the CLLP.
159. It is noted that Lincolnshire Bat Group commented that the methodologies used were appropriate and did not raise specific objections to the proposals following the receipt of the Regulation 25 further information, however, given that Nottinghamshire Bat Group was involved in the NBP, it is considered that their advice regarding the importance of the site for bats, and specifically Barbastelle bats, is more likely to be appropriate in this case, and is referenced by Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust.
Historic Environment
160. The NPPF, CSDMP policy DM4 and CLLP policy LP25 seek to conserve and enhance the historic environment, having regard to the significance of any heritage assets and their setting. The application site lies within a rich historic context, including a number of significant designated and non- designated heritage assets.
161. The historic landscape within which the application site is located includes the following heritage assets:
• Scheduled Roman Villa – within 70 metres to the east of the application site, on the opposite side of Folly Lane in Abbey Field is a Scheduled Monument known as Roman villa west of Hill Holt Farm, Norton Disney. It is of national importance for the evidence it contains of rural life in the Roman period. The villa was revealed in 1933 during the ploughing of the site and this led to the partial excavation of the site. It is thought to have been occupied from 70AD to 360AD and contained a considerable number of features and finds, including three skeletons, pottery, objects of glass, bone, bronze and pewter and a collection of coins;
Page 142 • Scheduled Roman Town – approximately 2.2km to the south west of the application site, along the route of the Fosse Way Roman road, now the A46, is the site of the Roman settlement of Crococalana (close to the settlement now known as Brough). Within the Roman settlement significant finds have included lead coffins, pottery, iron and bronze objects and coins. Features such as pits, drains and foundation trenches have been identified;
• Brills Farm – to the south of the application lies Brills Farm which is a non-designated heritage asset which has evidence of both Iron Age and Roman settlement activity;
• Gallows Nooking Common – along the county boundary between Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire is a bank and ditch, thought to provide a sequence of activity dating from the Iron Age, showing a historic persistence to the boundary. Iron Age, Roman and post medieval pottery have been recovered from the bank; and
• On-site archaeology – it is clear from the investigations undertaken to inform this planning application that there are archaeological remains within the application site itself which are part of the context of the Roman and Iron Age settlement activity (see below for further details).
162. The Fosse Way Roman road, whilst now a modern dual carriageway, is nevertheless an important feature of the historic landscape, connecting Roman settlements. To the west of the Fosse Way, opposite the application site is a Roman road now known as North Scaffold Lane.
163. The archaeological survey work undertaken by the applicant in relation to this application revealed features of interest and finds within the application site, including (but not limited to) a potential road link to the Fosse Way running across the northern area of the site towards the Roman villa; features likely to be Iron Age or Roman settlement remains; and Iron Age pottery. The potential road link to the Fosse Way continues the line of the North Scaffold Lane Roman road, to the west of the Fosse Way, and Historic England describe it as appearing to be “intimately associated with the Villa itself”. Indeed, on the basis of the survey work undertaken, Historic England and the County Council’s Historic Environment officer note that the villa site itself occupies a larger area than that protected by the scheduling. The footnote to paragraph 194 of the NPPF makes clear that those parts of the villa site extending beyond the scheduled area which are demonstrably of equivalent significance to the scheduled monument, need to be considered subject to the policies for designated assets, in this case, of the highest significance. The proposed development would result in at least the partial loss of the potential road link.
164. There are a number of listed buildings in the area surrounding the application site, within both Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire. Section 66 of the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 requires local planning authorities to have special regard to the desirability of
Page 143 preserving a listed building or its setting or features of special architectural or historic interest, when considering whether to grant planning permission. The proposed development would not cause harm to the listed buildings themselves and so consideration is focused on any impacts to their respective settings. It is not considered that the proposed development would cause harm to the setting of listed heritage assets in Lincolnshire. It is noted that Newark and Sherwood District Council has raised concern with respect to the setting of listed buildings in Brough and Collingham, including taking into account incidental views of the development from further afield. However, it is not considered that there are any functional relationships or experiences between the listed buildings and the proposed development which would be harmed to such an extent as to justify the refusal of planning permission on this ground.
165. In light of the historic landscape within which the application site lies, the applicant was requested to provide further research, details and analysis in relation to the proposed development and the designated and non- designated heritage assets and the wider historic landscape, taking into account the importance of setting. It is considered that the information submitted by the applicant seriously underplays the importance of the historic context, is flawed as it is incomplete and adopts an incorrect approach in various ways. For example, it is considered that the applicant has not adopted the correct approach to assessing the setting of the Roman villa, as the Updated Heritage Assessment states that the Crococalana Roman settlement “was scoped out following a site visit because it cannot be seen or experienced from the development site, or vice versa, and does not form part of a tandem view with the development site from more distant locations”. No reference is made to features such as Gallows Nooking Common and no consideration is given to the Nottinghamshire Historic Environment Record, despite the county boundary being within a few metres of the application site boundary. In addition, the references to the Lincolnshire Historic Environment Record are not up to date.
166. Policy DM4 states that where adverse impacts are identified, planning permission will only be granted subject to specific criteria being met. The first of these criteria is that it must be demonstrated that the proposal cannot reasonably be located on an alternative site to avoid harm. The second criteria and third criteria are relevant if the first criteria is complied with. These state a requirement that harmful aspects can be satisfactorily mitigated; or that there are exceptional overriding reasons which outweigh the need to safeguard the significance of heritage assets which would be harmed.
167. In circumstances where there would be harm to the significance of a heritage asset or its setting, policy LP25 requires clear justification for the works, so that the harm can be weighed against public benefits.
168. Paragraph 193 of the NPPF states “When considering the impact of a proposed development on the significance of a designated heritage asset, great weight should be given to the asset’s conservation (and the more
Page 144 important the asset, the greater the weight should be). This is irrespective of whether any potential harm amounts to substantial harm, total loss or less than substantial harm to its significance.” Paragraph 194 states “Any harm to, or loss of, the significance of a designated heritage asset (from its alteration or destruction, or from development within its setting), should require clear and convincing justification. This paragraph highlights that scheduled monuments are assets of the highest significance.
169. Paragraph 196 states “Where a development will lead to less than substantial harm to the significance of a designated heritage asset, this harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposal including, where appropriate, securing its optimum viable use.” Paragraph 197 requires a “balanced judgement” to be made in relation to applications affecting the significance of a non-designated heritage asset, having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset.
170. Paragraph 199 states “Local planning authorities should require developers to record and advance understanding of the significance of any heritage assets to be lost … However, the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted.”
171. The NPPF defines “setting” as “The surroundings in which a heritage asset is experienced. Its extent is not fixed and may change as the asset and its surrounding evolve”. Building on this, Historic England’s guidance document “The Setting of Historic Assets” (2017) states that “The extent and importance of setting is often expressed by reference to visual considerations. Although views of or from an asset will play an important part, the way in which we experience an asset in its setting is also influenced by other environmental factors such as noise, dust and vibration from other land uses in the vicinity, and by our understanding of the historic relationship between places… The contribution that setting makes to the significance of the heritage asset does not depend on there being public rights or an ability to access or experience that setting”. It goes on to state that where the experience of a heritage asset is capable of being affected by a proposed development (in any way) then the proposed development can be said to affect the setting of that asset. It is therefore very clear that there does not have to be views or intervisibility between places or heritage assets in order for the importance of their setting to be experienced. The experience of the heritage asset can come from an understanding of the historic relationships between places and that forms part of the setting of the asset.
172. As stated above, the setting of heritage assets relates to the way in which they are experienced, and is not simply a matter of views of or from assets. The application site lies between a scheduled Roman villa, a scheduled Roman settlement, the Fosse Way Roman road, Gallows Nooking Common and Brills Farm. Together, these designated and non-designated heritage assets form a landscape with considerable time-depth, which is still legible today. Any assessment of the setting of the Roman villa must therefore take this into account, as it forms a key part of its setting. The proposed
Page 145 development would introduce a large-scale industrial type activity onto the application site, between these heritage assets, which would operate on a 24 hour basis. The development would involve a series of large structures, continuous movements of HGVs to and from the site, together with external lighting and the process itself would result in visible emissions from a proposed 35 metre chimney stack. The development would interrupt the legibility of the historic landscape and have a significant impact on the setting of the scheduled Roman villa. The development would also have harmful impacts on existing archaeology within the application site and potentially along Folly Lane in relation to the upgrading of the road and access.
173. The submitted documents fail to consider all of the relevant designated and non-designated heritage assets and therefore this results in the assessment significantly underplaying the potential impacts of the proposed development. The extent of the harmful impacts as a result of the change in the character on this rural and historic landscape which would occur through the proposed development is not recognised within the application documents.
174. It is noted that the application documents state that the development would result in “less than substantial harm” to the setting of the Roman villa. However, it appears that the approach taken misinterprets the significance of this. The NPPF divides harm to heritage assets into two categories: substantial harm; and less than substantial harm. Both categories involve harm to a heritage asset. The approach taken by the applicant seeks to significantly underplay the importance or significance of harm which is “less than substantial”, diminishing it to almost no harm at all. This approach is not correct.
175. Where there is less than substantial harm, paragraphs 193, 194 and 196 of the NPPF must be taken into account (as set out above). These require clear and convincing justification for the development and that any harm should be weighed against the public benefits of the proposed development. The only arguments advanced by the applicant in the Updated Heritage Assessment regarding the public benefits of the development relate to the opportunities to gain additional archaeological knowledge through the excavation of the application site; increased understanding of the villa; and improved management of surviving archaeological assets through cessation of arable cultivation (however, this activity would be replaced by the proposed development and so result in the loss of any remaining archaeology, or it simply remaining in-situ, as at present). Paragraph 199 of the NPPF is very clear that the ability to record evidence of our past should not be a factor in deciding whether such loss should be permitted. The benefits cited by the applicant are therefore not considered to constitute public benefits to be weighed in favour of the development.
176. Given the rich historic landscape in which the development would sit, it is considered that the proposals would be highly damaging to the setting of the scheduled Roman villa, sitting at the upper end of “less than substantial
Page 146 harm”; that it would be harmful to the setting of the non-designated assets at Brills Farm and Gallows Nooking Common; and would result in the loss of non-designated heritage assets within the application site. The presence of a potential road link between the Fosse Way and the Roman villa requires further investigation to establish its importance, however, if this is found to be a Roman road, it could arguably form part of the area to which the footnote to paragraph 194 of the NPPF applies, and should be treated as having the same level of protection as the Scheduled Monument. As such, it cannot be concluded that the development would not have a greatly harmful impact, resulting, as it would, in at least the partial loss of this potentially highly significant heritage asset. It is not considered that any proposals have been put forward which would avoid or mitigate this harm. Historic England, the County Council’s Historic Environment Manager, North Kesteven District Council and Newark and Sherwood District Council have all objected to the application due to the harmful impacts it would have.
177. In accordance with the NPPF, CSDMP policy DM4 and CLLP policy LP25, consideration must be given to whether there are any alternative sites available which would avoid the harm, whether any public benefits of the development outweigh the harm caused, or whether there are any other exceptional overriding reasons which outweigh the harm caused. These matters are considered below in the Planning Balance section of this report.
Flood Risk and Drainage
178. The NPPF, policies DM15 and DM16 of the CSDMP and policy LP14 of the CLLP seek to encourage development to be located in areas at lowest risk of flooding, ensure that development does not increase flood risk on-site or elsewhere, provide protection to the water environment and encourage the use of sustainable drainage systems (SuDS).
179. The application site lies within flood zone one, the lowest flood risk zone. The Flood Risk Assessment and Drainage Strategy (FRADS) notes that the site straddles the catchment boundary between the River Witham and River Trent and that there are minor watercourses that drain the site area. The FRADS states that the site is at very low risk of any flooding from any source but that there is a risk of pluvial flooding and as a result, building floor slab levels are proposed to be higher than external levels for service roads and yards.
180. Within the application site there is an area around the processing plant which is classed as being at risk of contamination of surface water run-off. This covers the area in which the raw material may be present and there is potential for contaminated surface water to be present. It is proposed that all surface water from this area would be directed to the proposed water treatment plant or to the enclosed concrete balancing tank to hold, pending treatment. The treated water would then be used in the processing operation. Roof water from within this area is proposed to be collected separately and ultimately discharged to a local watercourse.
Page 147 181. In relation to the matter of contamination and water pollution, the proposed development would include provision for a concrete holding tank to receive surface water from the area around the processing buildings (that is, the area where contamination is most likely to occur) which would be designed to accommodate the 100 year plus 40% climate change rainfall event with capacity to spare. This therefore adequately prepares for such an event. The water in that tank would then be directed to the on-site water treatment plant. In addition to this, this FRADS states that a low-height perimeter curb is proposed around the processing building, water treatment plant and concrete attenuation tank area. This is stated to be a continuous curb with a shallow hump for vehicles entering the processing area. Full details of this curbing are not currently included within the application documents but would be required to be submitted for approval to ensure that adequate and appropriate measures are implemented to prevent contamination and water pollution as a result of surface water from the site. Therefore, if planning permission is granted, it is recommended that it is subject to a condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of such details. The FRADS states that all of the attenuation basins have been designed with spare capacity for holding water.
182. It is noted that in the representations received, reference has been made to the proposed lagoons containing vast amounts of waste. The lagoons are proposed to contain clean water and are not proposed for the storage of any waste.
183. The surface water from the lorry park area and other roads outside the immediate area of the processing plant are proposed to be directed to swales and an attenuation basin. Throttled flows would then control discharge rates to a local watercourse. This surface water would go through multiple treatment stages to enable a high quality discharge from the site.
184. Within the staff and visitor car parking area, permeable paving is proposed.
185. The lagoons and pond on the site are proposed for the storage of water derived from the site.
186. Foul drainage is proposed to be dealt with on-site with treatment and disposal to a near-surface soakaway or watercourse.
187. The FRADS concludes that the proposed development would not increase flood risk to third parties and that any on-site risks of flooding to the development would be very low and are considered to be acceptable. The mitigation measures recommended in the FRADS have been incorporated into the proposed development. It is recommended that if planning permission is granted, it is subject to a condition requiring the implementation of these mitigation measures.
188. Specific queries have been raised by the case officer in relation to flood risk and the drainage strategy to both the Environment Agency and the County Council, as Lead Local Flood Authority, including in relation to concerns
Page 148 raised in the representations received. No objections were raised to the proposals by either party. Highways England initially raised concerns regarding drainage towards the A46 trunk road but in response to the further information submitted to support the application, has confirmed that the additional details address the previous concerns and recommend that the implementation of the drainage measures is the subject of a condition if planning permission is granted. This position is agreed with and such a condition is recommended.
189. In the representations received, queries have been raised regarding the treatment of surface water in a flood event and treatment of contaminated water. Concerns have also been raised regarding water flowing beyond the site boundaries, causing pollution to local water courses, nearby ponds and lakes and impacts on agriculture and wildlife as a result. A series of measures, as set out above, have been proposed to collect and treat potentially contaminated water and North Kesteven’s Environmental Health Officer has confirmed that emissions to air, land and water, including spillages, would be controlled through a Local Authority A2 Environmental Permit, requiring demonstration of Best Available Techniques. Therefore, it is considered that, on the basis of the information provided, and subject to the recommended conditions, these matters would be adequately and appropriately addressed through the proposed drainage strategy.
190. In response to the application as originally submitted, Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue raised objections to the development due to inadequate access and water supply, in the event of a fire. The applicant has subsequently provided further information and a commitment to deliver the necessary infrastructure, the details of which would need to be secured through a condition for the submission, approval and implementation of a suitable scheme of measures, if planning permission is granted. As a result of this, Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue has withdrawn the previous objection.
191. Overall, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would be acceptable in relation to flood risk and drainage, and would not present risks of contamination of local water courses. As such, it would not conflict with planning policy in this regard.
Waste
192. The National Planning Policy for Waste and CSDMP policy DM2 seek to minimise the amount of waste generated and push waste as high up the waste hierarchy as possible.
193. As set out above in relation to the principle of development, the proposed ABP plant would help in the delivery of this aim, by facilitating the re-use of ABP waste (although as set out below, it is noted that the applicant disagrees that this should be considered as a waste product). It accords with the national and local policy context in this respect.
Page 149 194. The proposed development as a whole can be broken down into two categories of waste generation, one relating to construction and demolition of structures on site; and another relating to the operation of the ABP facility. In relation to the construction and demolition phases of the development, waste material would be generated. In the EIA Regulation 25 Request Response by Applicant to LCC document, the applicant has stated that a range of measures will be adopted, including the employment of a quantity surveyor to ensure minimal wastage during the procurement process and that careful consideration would be given to the potential reuse of materials on site, with the aim of not having to remove any excavated material off-site. A Construction Environmental Management Plan could address and secure appropriate management of waste generated during this phase of the development. The applicant has not submitted a Construction Environmental Management Plan at this stage but has confirmed a willingness to agree to a pre-commencement condition requiring the submission, approval and implementation of such. It is recommended that if planning permission is granted, it is subject to such a condition.
195. In terms of the operation of the site, it is stated that the applicant’s current waste contractor at its Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site has a waste diverted from landfill rate of 99% and it is thought this standard can be maintained in relation to the proposed development. In addition to this, the proposed development includes a water treatment plant which will enable the reuse of water as part of the operational process. The ABP processing itself produces very little waste.
196. Overall, it is concluded that the ABP process itself ensures that this waste material is managed in accordance with the waste hierarchy and that, subject to the use of planning conditions requiring the submission, approval and implementation of a Constructional Environmental Management Plan, the construction, demolition and operational phases of the development would not have adverse impacts in relation to waste. As such, the proposed development would not conflict with the National Planning Policy for Waste or CSDMP policy DM2 in this respect.
Safeguarding of Mineral Resources
197. Policy M11 of the CSDMP seeks to protect mineral resources that are considered to be of current or future economic importance within minerals safeguarding areas from permanent sterilisation by other development and sets out a requirement for all applications for non-minerals development within a minerals safeguarding area to be accompanied by a Minerals Assessment. The CSDMP sets out the location of the minerals safeguarding areas and the application site lies within a Sand and Gravel Minerals Safeguarding Area; as such, a Minerals Assessment is required. Policy M11 states that non-minerals development in a minerals safeguarding area will be granted planning permission provided that it will not sterilise mineral resources within the mineral safeguarding area or prevent future minerals extraction on neighbouring land. Where this is not the case,
Page 150 planning permission will be granted when one of a list of five criteria is met which justifies the development.
198. The original application did not contain a Minerals Assessment, however, further to a request for further information, a Minerals Assessment has been submitted. The Minerals Assessment estimates that there is approximately 5 metres of mineral (sand and gravel) across approximately 70% of the site. The report states that there is likely to be approximately 175,000 tonnes of recoverable mineral. However, it should be noted that significant buffers and discounts have been applied in the Minerals Assessment to reach this figure, which may not be appropriate in light of the nature of the proposed development, and so the actual quantity of recoverable material may be higher than is stated in the Minerals Assessment.
199. The Minerals Assessment considers three possible scenarios for the extraction of mineral; the first being large-scale “stand alone extraction”. This option is stated to be discounted in light of the investment required to set up a stand-alone extraction and processing operation within the application site. This scenario doesn’t give any consideration to the processing of the extracted mineral at either of the nearby existing quarries (Norton Bottoms or Swinderby), as a means of avoiding the costs of establishing processing operations on the site itself. It is acknowledged that both existing sites may need temporary planning permissions to import and process the mineral, and any such applications for such a planning permission would be determined separately, however, neither possibility has been considered when arguably that approach might overcome the economic implications of on-site processing which has led to the discounting of this option.
200. The second scenario is described as medium scale prior extraction and relates to a reduced scheme of prior extraction, with export of the mineral to an existing site for processing. It is noted that this is intended to be a lesser scale of extraction than considered under the first scenario, but no details are provided regarding what exactly would constitute a “medium scale” or “reduced scheme” in this case. The Minerals Assessment states that given the proximity of Norton Bottoms Quarry, it would theoretically be feasible to transport mineral to the established processing plant at that quarry. It is acknowledged in the Minerals Assessment that planning permission would be required for the exportation of the mineral and processing off-site and it is stated that the costs involved, in relation to this approach would be uneconomic, in light of what is described as the presence of “significant, lower cost reserves within the area”. The Minerals Assessment also states that the extraction of a relatively limited area of mineral would result in an incongruous landscape which would render the site wholly unsuitable both for continued agricultural production or the development, without the importation of significant volumes of engineering fill. This option is also discounted by the Minerals Assessment.
Page 151 201. It is unclear why the second scenario was constrained to a “reduced scheme” and why extraction of all mineral was not considered. No justification for this is provided.
202. The third scenario, and the one proposed through the application, is smaller scale “incidental extraction” in relation to the excavation of lagoons, footings, service trenches, drainage infrastructure and such like. It is proposed that this site-derived aggregate could be used within the construction of the development. Within this scenario it is also recommended in the Minerals Assessment that it may be possible to excavate mudstones from the site to be used to seal the storage lagoons.
203. Having considered these three options, the Minerals Assessment concludes that the proposed development would not result in the sterilisation of a mineral resource worthy of safeguarding and would not result in any off-site sterilisation.
204. The conclusion of the Mineral Assessment that the mineral resource at the site is not worthy of safeguarding is not agreed with. The potential yield from future mineral extraction of the site without this development, and the constraints on mineral extraction proposed, is likely to be significantly more than the stated quantity of 175,000 tonnes; however, this volume alone is not considered as an insignificant contribution to the mineral resource of the Lincoln / Trent Valley, albeit that this resource may fulfil a future, rather than an immediate requirement for mineral. Consequently, there is a need for the development proposal to satisfy one of the five criteria of policy M11 before planning permission will be granted.
205. The first criterion requires the applicant to demonstrate that prior extraction of the mineral would be impracticable and that the development could not be reasonably sited elsewhere. As stated above, it is not clear why the full extraction of mineral from the site was not considered in the context of processing being undertaken at a nearby quarry and it cannot therefore be concluded that this is not possible or practicable. The development fails to satisfy the first part of this criteria. The second part of the criteria is addressed in a subsequent section of this report.
206. The second criterion allows for development of a temporary nature and in circumstances where the site can be restored to a condition which does not inhibit mineral extraction within the timeframe the mineral is likely to be needed. The proposed development is not of a temporary nature and therefore cannot satisfy this criterion.
207. The third criterion allows for development where there is an overriding need to meet local economic needs, and the development could not reasonably be sited elsewhere. The two requirements of this criterion are addressed in subsequent sections of this report.
208. The fourth criterion relates to development of a minor nature which would have a negligible impact with respect to sterilising the mineral resource. The
Page 152 proposed development is not of a minor nature and would result in the sterilisation of the majority of the mineral resource and so does not meet the requirements of this criteria.
209. The fifth criterion relates to development which is, or forms part of, an allocation in the development plan. The site is not allocated for the proposed use and therefore the development is not in compliance with this criteria.
210. The policy also includes a schedule of exemptions which allow for planning permission to be granted without meeting the requirements of the policy criteria, however, the proposed development does not fall within one of the categories of exempt developments.
211. The proposed development therefore fails to meet four of the five criteria in policy M11 and the assessment of whether it is in accordance, or otherwise, with the fifth criterion in relation to demonstration of an overriding need to meet local economic needs and it not being reasonable to site the development elsewhere, is considered below.
Alternatives
212. Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations sets out what information should be included in ESs. Within the scope of this, alternatives to the proposed development are required to be given consideration. This can include alternative locations and designs. Given the location of the application site, policy LP5 of the CLLP requires a clear demonstration that there are no suitable or appropriate sites or buildings within allocated sites or within the built up area of the existing settlement. In addition to this, and in light of the above identified impacts on the historic environment, CSDMP policy DM4 requires justification that the development cannot be reasonably located elsewhere; in light of the requirements of mineral safeguarding, policy M11 of the CSDMP requires demonstration that the development cannot be located on an alternative site (given that the development fails to meet other criteria within policy M11, as stated above); and paragraph 175 of the NPPF requires consideration of alternative sites where there would be significant harm to biodiversity.
213. Within the information initially submitted and that provided subsequently as a result of a request for further information, a description of the alternatives studied by the developer has been included, together with commentary as to why these sites have not been considered to be suitable or appropriate alternatives for the proposed development, and why the application site has been chosen.
214. The applicant has set out a list of seven (six were originally identified but a seventh was added at the further information stage) basic requirements that are stated to be essential to the functioning of the proposed animal by- products processing facility and that these have formed an essential part of the assessment of possible alternative sites. (It should be noted that the
Page 153 applicant determined the criteria alone, they were not established as a result of consultation with the case officer.) The criteria used are:
• minimum site area of 6 hectares (although it is noted that the original documents stated that a minimum site size of 5.5 hectares was required); • the site is available for immediate development; • access directly or within approximately 200 metres of a classified road; • no existing dwellings on the HCV route between the site and the classified road; • minimal number of dwellings in close proximity of the site; • within 30km of the operational site at Skellingthorpe (80% of employees live within this distance); and • access directly or within approximately 200 metres of a major classified road (A-road) that forms part of an existing HCV route (this last criteria was added at the further information stage).
215. The application documents consider a range of alternative sites, with sites being considered in the Planning, Design and Access Statement, the Environmental Statement, the Odour Impact Assessment, the Air Quality Impact Assessment and the Additional Non-EIA Regulation 25 Request by LCC Response By Applicant. Not all of the sites are considered in all of the documents, although it is unclear why. All of the alternative sites considered have been ruled out by the applicant as possible alternatives for a variety of reasons, in summary these are stated to be:
• Land off Jessop Way, Newark o odour impacts on residential properties and adjoining industrial land users; o potential conflicts with planning policy; and o may prejudice the delivery of allocated uses.
• Land west of Grange Lane, Newark o potential conflicts with delivery of future residential development regarding odour; o Southern Link Road not yet completed so vehicles would have to travel past residential properties to access the site; o may prejudice the delivery of the allocated site.
• Network 46, Witham St Hughs o odour impacts on residential properties and growing population; o dwellings on route to the site; o may prejudice the delivery of additional land; o does not comply with policy expectation of site; and o negative impacts due to being a “bad neighbour”.
• Teal Park, North Hykeham o insufficient land in Phase 1; and
Page 154 o Phase 2 sites large enough but odour impacts and negative impacts due to being a “bad neighbour”.
• Sleaford Enterprise Park o policy conflicts; o would sterilise the whole site; o odour impacts on residential, industrial and commercial receptors; o negative impact as a “bad neighbour”; and o does not comply with policy expectation.
• Somerby Park, Gainsborough o size and layout restrictions; o odour impacts on residential properties, public house and restaurant; o negative impact as a “bad neighbour”; and o does not comply with policy expectation.
• Hemswell Cliff o unlikely to fit with Local Development Order; and o odour impacts on future users.
• Gainsborough North o contrary to policy to promote B1 and start-up uses; o incompatible with planned residential development; and o not immediately available.
• Langar Industrial Park o landowner stated not possible.
• Established Employment Areas o no sites of the appropriate size or shape; o contrary to policy expectations; and o concerns raised by landowner / developer.
• Local Employment Sites o no sites of an appropriate size.
216. Where references are made in the supporting documents to landowners and developers stating that the development of their sites for the proposed use would not be acceptable, no evidence has been provided to support this.
217. As is clear throughout the CSDMP and the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Site Locations Document, it can be acceptable for waste developments to be located on sites which are existing or allocated industrial / employment land. Therefore, unless there is an explicit exclusion of waste development within a local plan allocation, it is not accepted that the proposed development would inevitably be “contrary to policy expectations” in the manner the application documents have adopted. Each
Page 155 case would need to be assessed on its own merits and therefore this should not be a reason for discounting a number of the above alternative sites considered.
218. In relation to the land at Grange Lane, Newark, the Odour Impact Assessment states that the location of the development on this site could be feasible. As stated above, North Kesteven District Council commissioned an independent Odour and Air Quality Consultant to review the documents submitted in relation to odour and air quality. One of the issues which the Consultant was asked to consider was whether the approach taken within the documents was appropriate and whether all of the alternative sites should be discounted due to potential odour impacts. In relation to the assessment of alternative sites, the Consultant has advised that a lower threshold can be applied to less sensitive receptors, for example neighbouring commercial and industrial users, than is applied to residential users and that this “could generally be considered to be 3.0 OUE/m3 98thpercentile 1-hour concentration. In light of this, the Consultant has concluded that a larger part of the site at land west of Grange Lane, Newark, could be developed for industrial or commercial use without there being a conflict with the proposed development.
219. This land forms part of the strategic allocation in the Newark and Sherwood Amended Core Strategy (2019) for Land South of Newark (Policy NAP 2A) and the specific site considered, is allocated for industrial use. To the north and east of this part of the allocation, the land is allocated for future mineral extraction and to the south and west it is open countryside. A green infrastructure area is allocated to the far north west corner of the industrial use allocation. The applicant has also stated that a reason for discounting this site as an alternative is due to the Southern Link Road (a road to the south of Newark to connect the A1 and A46) not having been completed yet and therefore HGVs would have to pass residential dwellings. However, it appears that a very limited number of residential dwellings would be required to be passed if the HGVs accessed the site from the A1 to the south. A full investigation of this has not been undertaken, however, on the basis of the information provided, it is considered that this should not be ruled out as an alternative location for the proposed development.
220. All of the sites considered are those covered by existing employment allocations, established employment areas or local employment sites and the submitted document also states that there are no alternative sites within the built up area of Norton Disney. In relation to the consideration of alternatives within the built up area of the existing settlement, as required by policy LP5, the applicant has chosen the settlement of Norton Disney as the settlement to consider, as this is the closest to the application site. However, this is a very narrow, and therefore inevitably restrictive, approach.
221. The application site does not lie within, or even adjacent to, an existing settlement. The small village of Norton Disney lies approximately 3km south east of the application site and there is no functional relationship between
Page 156 the proposed development and the village of Norton Disney. The applicant should have considered alternatives beyond Norton Disney. For example, there are many other settlements, both north east and south west of the application site, along the route of the A46, which are larger than Norton Disney but these have not been considered as potential locations for the proposed development. That is not to say with any certainty that any of those settlements have any suitable alternative sites for the proposed development, but that the applicant ought to have considered whether a broader area offered any potential alternative locations. This is particularly pertinent given the comments made in the application documents regarding the locations of the customer base (reference is made to 374 customers being within a 50 miles radius) and one of the criteria established by the applicant for the selection of alternative sites being within 30km of the operational site at Skellingthorpe, and therefore the area of search ought to have been much wider than the village of Norton Disney. Indeed, it ought to have been at least as wide as the 30km radius from Skellingthorpe, and importantly, it ought to have taken into account other potential countryside locations.
222. As set out above in relation to the principle of development, it is possible (although, on the basis of the information submitted, it is not accepted in relation to this case) that there might be justification for an open countryside location for certain types of waste processing operations. No alternative open countryside locations have been considered by the applicant as part of the consideration of alternatives. It is accepted that this would not necessarily be a requirement of policy LP5, however, policy DM4 requires the consideration of alternative sites in cases where there is an adverse impact on the historic environment, paragraph 175 of the NPPF requires consideration of alternative sites where there is significant harm to biodiversity and policy M11 requires consideration of alternative sites where a development has a mineral safeguarding impact, and so arguably these policies provide the context for the consideration of alternative countryside locations. Additionally, Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations does not limit the extent of consideration of alternatives and so would allow for consideration of alternative countryside locations. It therefore cannot be concluded that there are no alternative countryside sites which could accommodate the proposed development.
223. In addition to the assessment of the above alternative sites, the existing site from which the developer currently operates at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe needs to be considered as a potential alternative. It is noted that the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site is not presented as an alternative as such within the chapters of the submitted documentation dealing with the issue, but given the existing use and the confirmation given in the further information that this use will not completely cease on the site, it is necessary to consider it now.
224. The applicant has stated that they are not the owners but are the leaseholders of the site and that there have been issues with the current landowner which have effectively resulted in it not being possible to
Page 157 undertake the proposed development at that site. It is also understood that the lease which the applicant holds on the existing site runs until 2041 and the applicant has expressed concern about spending the sums of money involved in the investment of the proposed development on that site, with no guarantee beyond 2041 of having a lease on the site.
225. It is not the role of the planning system to protect the private interests of any particular individual or business. Whilst it might be the case that the applicant is encountering difficulties with the current landowners regarding the redevelopment of their existing facility at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe, that does not mean from a planning perspective that the site cannot be used for ABP processing, either using the existing infrastructure, or by being redeveloped with the latest infrastructure, subject to obtaining the necessary planning permission. The contractual arrangements between the applicant and the landowner are not material planning considerations insofar as the continued use of the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site should not be ruled out as an alternative to the proposed development.
226. In the original application submission documents, the applicant had offered a commitment to cease operations at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site, and argued that this would present significant positive benefits to the community of Skellingthorpe. However, the further information documents submitted in October 2019 confirm that the cessation of operations at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe, which had been proposed to be secured through a s.106 legal agreement, no longer form part of the package offered through the application. In fact, in the further information submitted to support the application, it is stated that ABP processing operations at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site would not be ceasing if planning permission was granted for the proposed development at Villa Farm, Norton Disney, and that they would be continued at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe for the duration of the existing lease (to 2041). Whilst the applicant states that such operations would be on a minimal scale (reference is made to operating the plant on a quarterly basis, or in cases of emergency), no s.106 legal agreement has been offered to secure this (indeed, it is explicitly stated that this is no longer being offered) and such restrictions could not be appropriately controlled through a planning condition. In the determination of this application, it must therefore be concluded that ABP processing at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe can continue and any real or perceived benefits to the community of Skellingthorpe from the cessation of ABP processing operations at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site could not be delivered or enforced through the planning system, and therefore the site must be an alternative to the proposed application site. The continued operation of the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site for ABP processing could arguably be considered as a “do nothing” alternative to the proposed development.
227. Planning application reference PL/0055/18 at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe was submitted in 2018 for the proposed redevelopment of that site for an ABP processing plant, along with four dwellings. Whilst planning permission was refused for the proposed development in July
Page 158 2019, the Committee report clearly states that due to the existing use of that site, the proposal for a new ABP processing plant would, in principle, be in accordance with the development plan policies. Therefore, as a matter of principle, the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site is a reasonable alternative location for the provision of an ABP processing plant, notwithstanding that it might not meet the criteria established by the applicant for consideration of alternative sites, or that it might not contractually be possible for the applicant to carry out the redevelopment of that site.
228. It is therefore concluded that there are at least two possible alternative sites for the processing of ABP, and there may be others which have not been explored due to the limited nature of the approach adopted by the applicant. The proposed development therefore fails to comply with the provisions of policies M11 and DM4 of the CSDMP, policy LP5 of the CLLP and paragraph 175 of the NPPF.
229. As set out within the Odour and Air Quality section of this report, alternative design solutions have been considered by the applicant as part of the evolution of this proposed development. Two different chimney stack heights were considered, one being 25 metres in height, one being 35 metres high. The 25 metre high chimney stack would have less of a landscape and visual impact than the 35 metre high chimney stack, however, the applicant chose to proceed with the proposal for a 35 metre high stack, because it is stated that it would have less impact in relation to odour and air quality than the 25 metre one. It is not considered that this is an unreasonable approach to the selection of this element of the proposal.
Need
230. It is considered that the issue of need can be broken down into two elements. Firstly, the need for the development in terms of a market need, and secondly, the need for the development to be located in the proposed location.
231. The National Planning Policy for Waste states that where proposals for waste development do not comply with planning policy, consideration can be given to the quantitative or market need for the development. In such cases, consideration should be given to the extent to which the capacity of existing operational facilities would satisfy any identified need. In addition, policy M11 of the CSDMP contains a number of criteria, at least one of which must be met, to justify taking an approach of not safeguarding a mineral reserve. One of these criteria is “an overriding need for the development to meet local economic needs”.
232. Additionally, it is considered that the need for the development to be located in the proposed location is relevant in this case, given that it does not comply with the locational planning policy, as stated above.
233. The application documents do not provide any evidence in relation to market need, other than in relation to the successful operation of the existing site at
Page 159 Skellingthorpe, the desire to expand and update the facilities and that it is proposed to transfer the existing operation from the Skellingthorpe site to the proposed site at Norton Disney. However, as stated above, the cessation of operations at the Jerusalem Road, Skellingthorpe site cannot be guaranteed and therefore it is possible (albeit that it is not the stated intention of the applicant) that ABP processing could be undertaken at both the existing Skellingthorpe site and the proposed Norton Disney site, if planning permission was granted for the proposed development. No evidence has been provided to demonstrate that there is a requirement for the additional capacity this would create. There is therefore no evidence that there is a market need for the additional capacity that would be created if the application site was to become operational. Neither has any evidence been provided which demonstrates an overriding need for the development to meet local economic needs. Indeed, no evidence has been provided that there is any local economic need for the development (particularly in light of the potential for ABP processing to continue at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site), and certainly not an overriding need.
234. A number of representations received have made reference to the animal by-products industry having existing spare capacity in terms of operational facilities, however, no specific evidence of this has been provided and so no weight can be attributed to this.
235. It cannot be concluded that there is a market or local economic need for the proposed development. As such, market or local economic need cannot be used to justify the development and the proposals fail to meet the requirements of the relevant criterion of policy M11 and the National Planning Policy for Waste.
236. In terms of the need for the development to be sited in the proposed location, there are inevitably links between this matter and the consideration of alternative locations. Part E(a) of policy LP55 requires that proposals for non-residential development will be supported provided that “the rural location of the enterprise is justifiable to maintain or enhance the rural economy or the location is justified by means of proximity to existing established businesses or natural features”. This policy therefore requires justification that the proposed development is required to be located on this particular open countryside site. As set out above, no acceptable justification has been provided that a countryside location is required in relation to the maintenance or enhancement of the rural economy and there are no identified established businesses or natural features, the proximity of which, justify the proposed site.
237. In addition to this, and in light of all of the above issues in relation to landscape and visual impacts, heritage impacts and minerals safeguarding it is necessary to consider whether there is a need for the proposed development to be located on this specific site (notwithstanding whether a market need has been demonstrated or not).
Page 160 238. As stated above, it is accepted that there might be an argument that developments of this nature could be justified in open countryside locations (albeit that it has not been adequately demonstrated in this case). However, no other open countryside locations were considered as part of the assessment of alternative sites (whilst they are not required to be in relation to policy LP5, Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations does not limit the nature of alternatives to be considered, policies M11 and DM4 and NPPF paragraph 175 also require consideration of alternative sites and are not limited in their scope). The applicant owns the application site, but that is not justification for the lack of consideration of alternative open countryside locations. It is acknowledged that the application site meets the criteria identified by the applicant for the selection and assessment of alternative sites, but this in itself does not justify the need for the development to take place on this site, particularly given that those criteria were established by the applicant alone and so could be argued to be self-fulfilling.
239. One further element in relation to the need for the proposals to be located on this site, relates to the “proximity principle”, that is, managing waste as close to its source as possible. This is a principle promoted in the NPPW and is carried through the spatial strategy of the CSDMP. Representations have been received raising objections to the importation of waste from beyond the boundary of Lincolnshire. The raw material proposed to be processed at this site is a combination of Category 1, 2 and 3 ABP. No evidence is provided of the sources of the raw material, although reference is made to 374 customers being within a 50 mile radius of the existing facility at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe. Category 1 ABP waste in particular, is more likely to have to travel further to be processed, as there are far fewer facilities which cater for this type of waste. It is understood that besides the site at Skellingthorpe, the nearest such facilities to the application site are located in Leek, Stoke on Trent and Bradford. Whilst no specific information is provided regarding the source of the ABP waste, it is accepted that this may not all derive from the county of Lincolnshire and that that in itself does not necessarily mean that it conflicts with the “proximity principle” given the nature of the waste. However, the existing site at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe currently processes all three categories of ABP waste, and is proposed to continue to do so (albeit that the applicant states on a much reduced scale) and so the need for a further ABP processing plant in such close proximity, particularly one which deals with Category 1 material, is a consideration which has not been addressed by the applicant. It does not weigh in favour of the proposals.
240. Overall, there is no evidence of a market or local need for the proposed development and no evidence of a need for the proposals to be located on this open countryside site. The need for the development cannot therefore be put into the planning balance in favour of the development.
Economic Benefits
241. Paragraph 80 of the NPPF states that planning policies and decisions should “help create conditions in which businesses can invest, expand and
Page 161 adapt. Significant weight should be placed on the need to support economic growth and productivity, taking into account both local business needs and wider opportunities for development”. The CSDMP and CLLP provide the development plan framework for this and CLLP policy LP5 in particular states that in principle, proposals will be supported which assist the delivery of economic prosperity and job growth to the area. It is important to note that the planning system operates in the public interest and not in the interests of private businesses or individuals.
242. In relation to the economic benefits of the proposed development, the applicant has stated that the proposed development would employ 25 full time equivalent (FTE) more employees than the existing facility at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe and that in the future the number of apprentices could increase to a maximum of 20 (currently there are stated to be between none and five). This is a positive economic benefit.
243. The Planning, Design and Access Statement states that the existing plant at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe processes a total of approximately 3,000 tonnes of Category 1 and Category 3 material per week and the Regulation 25 further information clarifies that the proposed facility would have the capacity to process up to 5,000 tonnes of material per week but it is stated that in practice, it is likely to operate at a lower capacity than that and the ES states that it is anticipated the weekly throughput would be 3,600 tonnes.
244. On the basis of the proposed staffing levels provided and the operational capacity of the proposed facility, it is accepted that the proposed development has the potential to employ more members of staff and process a greater volume of material than is currently the case at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe and there is therefore the potential for economic benefits associated with that. The applicant has stated that the business, operating from its existing Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site makes a substantial financial contribution to the local economy, with a contribution in one year through supplier purchases of £1.34 million, salaries and wages of £4.22 million and over £2.4 million invested in tractor and trailer units and bio-filter technology. The applicant states that maintaining a local presence at the proposed new site would ensure that that spend is maintained in the local economy. The proposed plant itself would inevitably involve significant economic investment to become operational. North Kesteven’s Economic Development team has supported the application in relation to job creation and investment in the local economy.
245. It should be noted, however, that there is currently no planning restriction on the throughput or staffing levels at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe plant, and given the application documents states this only currently operates at 55% capacity due to potential amenity issues, it cannot be concluded that these economic benefits and the financial contribution to the local economy, can only be delivered at the proposed Villa Farm, Norton Disney site.
246. There are also economic benefits in relation to the role this type of facility plays in supporting the agricultural and food production industries, as is
Page 162 evident from many of the letters of support received. However, again, this is currently provided at the existing Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site and there is no planning restriction on it continuing to do so for the foreseeable future. There is no evidence of an increased market need for ABP processing and so the economic benefits in terms of the agricultural and food production industries may be very similar to the existing situation, even if the proposed development became operational.
247. As stated above, it is possible that if planning permission was granted, both the proposed development and the existing facility at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe could be operational and so there may be economic benefits in terms of a broader number of employment opportunities, however, no market or local economic need has been demonstrated in relation to the operation of both plants and so this is not considered to justify weighing such economic benefits in favour of the proposed development.
248. A number of representations have been received which have expressed concern that if planning permission was granted for the proposed development, this would have a detrimental impact on the local economy and that a greater number of jobs would be lost than those proposed to be created. The sources for the claims of job losses relate to a range of businesses, such as those involved in tourism, leisure, food and drink outlets and establishments providing educational and special needs provision. No formal assessments of economic impacts have been submitted with these representations. The concerns relate largely to amenity issues such as odour and noise, and the previous sections of this report have concluded that there would not be significant adverse impacts resulting from the development in relation to either of these matters. It is also noted that in the representations of support received in relation to this application, to counter the representations of objection on this matter, reference is made to the existence of thriving businesses in the settlement of Skellingthorpe, in close proximity to the existing ABP facility in that village. It is not considered that there is justification for seeking to refuse planning permission on the grounds of adverse impacts on the local economy and local businesses.
249. In relation to economic benefits and the positive approach to economic growth advocated in the NPPF, it is considered that whilst some weight can be given to the potential increase in employment opportunities and the wider economic benefits to the local economy, this is somewhat limited, as there are currently no restrictions on staffing or throughput levels at the existing facility at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe and there is no reason to suggest that the supplier purchases, salaries, wages and investment in equipment such as vehicles would cease at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site if planning permission was not granted for the new development, as that site could nevertheless continue to operate without the proposed development going ahead. No evidence has been provided of a market need for both the existing and proposed plants to operate and so no weight can be given to potential combined economic benefits of both facilities.
Page 163 Cumulative Impacts
250. It is a requirement of Schedule 4 of the EIA Regulations that cumulative impacts are assessed as part of the EIA process. In addition, policy DM17 of the CSDMP requires consideration of cumulative impacts.
251. As part of the original application documentation, it was stated that a unilateral undertaking would be provided which confirmed that the existing animal by-product processing which currently takes place at the existing facility at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe would be ceased if planning permission was granted for the currently proposed development at Villa Farm, Norton Disney. The animal by-products processing plant at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe is an existing operation, which it is understood has been operational for many years. In the latest further information submitted, the applicant has stated that due to “business constraints and restrictions that are applied to the Skellingthorpe site and have come to light, the applicant will not now be submitting a unilateral undertaking.” The applicant has nevertheless stated that it is the intention to move the operation to the proposal site and has provided information regarding the transfer of processing from the Skellingthorpe site to the Norton Disney site. This is stated to be proposed to be carried out in a phased manner, with Category 3 processing proposed to be commenced at the Norton Disney site in the first instance, whilst Category 1 processing remained at the Skellingthorpe site. The second phase of transfer of processing would involve the commencement of Category 1 processing at the Norton Disney site. At this stage it is stated that the Skellingthorpe site would only be used for ABP processing on a quarterly basis (it is stated in order to comply with the existing lease) or in the case of an emergency where a large amount of Category 1 material is required to be processed, and that the Skellingthorpe site would also be retained for a maintenance and servicing facility (given that full details of this are not included within this application, it is unclear whether this would in itself require planning permission).
252. Given that no information has been presented to suggest that the existing operation at the Skellingthorpe site is unlawful from a planning perspective, and the applicant is not in a position to provide a legal agreement securing the cessation of all operations at that site, it is reasonable and necessary to consider that the operation at Skellingthorpe could take place in addition to any new operation at the Norton Disney site, if planning permission was granted for the latter. It would not be reasonable for the County Council to require the cessation of all operations at the Skellingthorpe site (which would be required to be secured through a s.106 legal agreement), given that the applicant has indicated that this would not be possible.
253. The ES states that cumulative impacts have been considered in relation to the specialist reports, taking into account existing or permitted developments, including in relation to issues such as air quality and noise. The Planning, Design and Access Statement considers the potential concurrent operation of the two plants and concludes that the application
Page 164 site is sufficiently separated from other ABP facilities, including the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe plant, that there would be no significant cumulative impacts. The conclusions of the ES and Planning, Design and Access Statement regarding the lack of significant cumulative impacts are not unreasonable and not disagreed with.
S.106 Legal Agreements
254. Legal agreements can be sought (through s.106 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1990, as amended) in relation to development proposals in circumstances where they would meet the legal tests set out in Regulation 122(2) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, as referenced in the NPPF.
255. The originally proposed environmental and amenity benefits to the residents of Skellingthorpe through the proposal to cease ABP processing at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe plant if planning permission was granted for the current proposals, was removed at the time the Regulation 25 further information was submitted, with the applicant confirming that this was no longer being offered. All parties with an interest in the relevant land must be party to a s.106 agreement to ensure that it is enforceable and in this case, the leaseholder, that is the current applicant, has stated that they are not willing to enter into a s.106 agreement to cease operations at the site and there has been no indication that the freeholder would be willing to enter into such an agreement. As stated above, a s.106 legal agreement cannot therefore be utilised to control, limit or provide for the cessation of ABP processing at that site.
256. The only matters which it are proposed to be dealt with through a s.106 legal agreement, if planning permission is granted, relate to the delivery, routeing and access arrangements to the site; and the widening of Folly Lane.
Other Matters
257. This section of the report deals with a range of matters which do not sit within any of the previous topics, but which are required to be addressed for clarity.
258. In the further information submitted within the document entitled “Additional Non-EIA Regulation 25 Request by LCC Response by applicant” the applicant has argued that the proposed development is not a waste management activity. The applicant refers to EC Directive 2008/98/EC, stating that this Directive excludes animal by-product from waste. However, this Directive does not exclude animal by-product from the definition of waste, it excludes a number of matters from coverage by that particular Directive “to the extent that they are covered by other Community legislation” and in relation to this matter it refers to “(b) animal by-products including processed products covered by Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002, except those which are destined for incineration, landfilling or use in a biogas or composting plant”.
Page 165 259. Directive 1774/2002 (which lays down health rules concerning animal by- products not intended for human consumption) has since been repealed and replaced, but specifically referred to animal by-products in terms of waste. Directive 1069/2009 (laying down health rules as regards animal by- products and derived products not intended for human consumption and repealing Regulation (EC) No 1774/2002 (Animal by-products Regulation)) (which replaced 1774/2002) refers to animal by-products in the context of it being waste. Reference is made to Directive 2008/98/EC in which waste is defined as “any substance or object which the holder discards or intends or is required to discard”.
260. The applicant has pursued this argument about whether animal by-product processing is a waste operation as a justification as to why the policies of the CSDMP should not be applied in relation to the determination of this application. This stance is disagreed with and the CSDMP is part of the development plan upon which the application should be determined.
261. It is unclear at this stage precisely how the vapour from the cookers inside the Category 1 and Category 3 processing buildings would be transported to the Thermal Recuperative Oxidisers associated with the Category 1 building on the site layout plan. In the Regulation 25 further information, a new eaves height gantry pipe was proposed but it is stated that the details are unknown at this stage. If planning permission is granted for the proposed development, full details of this, taking into account the location of the high pressure gas mains which runs through the site between the Category 1 and Category 3 processing buildings, should be required to be submitted and approved prior to the commencement of development. This could be secured by a suitably worded planning condition.
262. A high pressure gas mains pipeline runs through the site and is subject to appropriate stand-off distances. Initially Cadent raised objections to the application due to potential impacts on the pipeline, however, following the receipt of further information and discussions with the applicant, the objections were withdrawn and the pipeline is not considered to be a constraint to the proposed development from a planning perspective.
263. A representation on behalf of a group of local service providers, including Witham Prospect School refers to the requirement for the County Council to comply with section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. This requirement is in relation to a range of matters, including the advancement of opportunity and fostering good relationship between persons who share a protected characteristic (which includes a disability) and persons who do not share it. The locality within which the application site lies, in relation to the service provisions for people with sensory-related disabilities, has been taken into consideration throughout the processing of this application and specific issues were highlighted in the Regulation 25 request for further information, seeking to address the need to take such matters appropriately into account. It is fully accepted that people with sensory-related disorders can be more sensitive to matters such a noise and odour, than those without such disorders, however, for the reasons set out above, and on the basis of the
Page 166 information provided and commitments set out within it, it is not concluded that the proposed development would result in adverse impacts in relation to odour, noise or highways.
264. The application site lies within the Witham Valley Country Park area. The Country Park is stated to be made up of a number of high quality green spaces in the heart of Lincolnshire, with the aim of improving and increasing connections between green spaces and opportunities for walking, cycling and a range of sporting and leisure activities. Hill Holt Wood is one of the sites specifically referred to with the Country Park. Representations have been received regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development on the Country Park. It is considered that any potential impacts have been considered above in this report, for example in relation to landscape and visual impacts, noise, odour and lighting.
265. It is noted that a number of representations received referred to the application site as being in the Green Belt or within a Conservation Area. The site is not designated for either Green Belt nor as a Conservation Area and therefore policies relating to these matters are not relevant in this case. One representation stated that the area should be protected as a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) due to the Roman history. SSSI designations relate to the natural environment and nature conservation, not to the historic environment and therefore such as designation in relation to Roman history would not be appropriate.
266. A number of objections have been made raising concerns regarding the adequacy of the consultation undertaken by the applicant prior to the submission of the planning application. One of the documents submitted with this application is a Consultation Summary; this sets out that individual briefing events took place with key stakeholders and that a drop-in consultation event was held in Norton Disney. It is considered that the approach to pre-application consultation set out in the document is acceptable.
267. Objections have been raised in representations received regarding the implications of the proposed development on existing poultry farming in the local area. The Animal and Plant Health Agency has been consulted on this application and no objections have been received.
268. A large number of representations raised concerns regarding the potential impacts of the proposed development on the plans to expand and develop the settlement of Witham St Hughs. Potential impacts in relation to this matter are appropriately addressed in the topic sections of this report above, for example, in relation to highways, odour, air quality and noise. No adverse impacts are concluded which conflict with the development plan policies for future residential and employment development at Witham St Hughs.
269. A number of the representations received make reference to the availability of documents and issues relating to using the on-line service to make
Page 167 representations. Submitted documents have been made available on-line, and hard copies have been available to view at Lincolnshire County Council and North Kesteven District Council, as soon as possible after submission.
270. A representation received stated that if planning permission was granted, the whole planning process would be judicially reviewed. A judicial review is a legal process which, in relation to planning decisions, considers whether the decision was made in accordance with the law. Decisions in cases of judicial review acknowledge that planning judgements can, and indeed should, be made in the determination of planning applications.
Non-Planning Issues
271. Within the representations received in relation to this application, a number of issues have been raised which are not planning matters and therefore are not material considerations in the determination of this application. Reference to them is included below for completeness and to indicate that they cannot be taken into account.
272. A number of representations have made reference to the impacts of the proposed development on house prices and the saleability of houses. These are not planning matters and therefore cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of this application.
273. Representations have been received (both in support and in objection) regarding the character, the health and safety record and the motivation of the applicant company, however, these are not planning matters and are therefore not taken into consideration in the determination of this application.
274. A number of representations have made reference to difficulties experienced by the applicant at the existing Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe site not being a reason for planning permission to be granted at this site. As stated above, the planning system does not operate in the interests of private individuals or companies, but in the public interest, and therefore it is correct that the arrangements between the applicant and the landowner at the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe are not planning matters and are not taken into consideration in the determination of this application. The price the applicant paid for the application site is not a material planning consideration in this case either.
275. One respondent has made representations regarding a right of access they have over the application site. Again, this is a private matter and is not a material consideration in the determination of the application.
276. A number of representations have speculated about what additional future development may be wanted at the site if planning permission is granted, however, this application must be determined on the basis of the proposals submitted to the County Council and any future development proposals would be considered on their own merits, at a future date, if applicable. Speculation regarding future development is not a material planning
Page 168 consideration and is not taken into account in this case. On a related matter, suggestions have been made about future development proposals associated with the Lancaster Bomber landmark, however, where planning permission is not in place, these cannot be taken into account in the determination this application.
277. Representations have been received regarding revenue and tax receipts for the County Council if the proposed development is granted planning permission. This is not a planning material and is not taken into account in the determination of the application.
278. Representations have also been received regarding where the applicant and the applicant’s parent company are based. These are not planning matters to be taken into account in the determination of this application.
Planning Balance
279. This section of the report draws together the previous sections and considers in which respects the proposed development is in accordance, or in conflict, with the development plan and national planning policy and the relative weight which can be attributed to potentially competing issues.
280. Starting first with the activity of ABP processing, as proposed. The process itself enables ABP waste to be re-used and therefore this stream of waste would be very high up the waste hierarchy. The process is considered to be a sustainable one, facilitating the re-use of the vast majority of the waste material. In this respect, the development is in accordance with the National Planning Policy for Waste and CSDMP policy DM2.
281. The proposed development would involve a significant investment into the local economy and it is acknowledged that it would have a role in supporting agricultural and food production industries, with associated economic benefits.
282. It is accepted that there are public benefits to the provision of facilities for processing ABP and that such facilities are an important part of the wider agricultural industry. However, it is the applicant’s stated intention to provide the proposed development as a replacement for an existing facility, that it is envisaged a similar amount of ABP would be processed on a weekly basis (currently approximately 3,000 tonnes per week, proposed to be 3,600 tonnes per week, although it is noted that the capacity would be higher than this) and there is therefore, on the basis of the stated intentions of the applicant, limited public benefit in terms of additional throughput of ABP processing. No evidence has been provided of a market or local economic need for two processing facilities in the locality, and therefore no public benefit can be concluded in terms of meeting an identified need.
283. There would be economic benefits in terms of the new jobs created at the site. However, these are potentially relatively limited when consideration is given to the existing situation of the operational facility at Jerusalem Farm,
Page 169 Skellingthorpe which has no planning limits regarding staffing or throughput levels and the lack of demonstration of market or local need.
284. The application documents describe the proposed facility as state of the art and using Best Available Technologies. In this respect, the proposals seek to minimise environmental impacts and this is a benefit of the development.
285. As stated above, whilst the application has asserted that the Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe plant would not be used on a day to day basis, this cannot be controlled through the planning system and so any public benefit to the residents of Skellingthorpe which may have been drawn from the cessation of such activities at that site, cannot be guaranteed or controlled. Additionally, any public benefit of the proposed new development has to be weighed against the potential continued use of the existing facility at Skellingthorpe, in addition to the proposed development. Overall, this limits the public benefit of the proposed development.
286. These benefits, either individually or in total, could certainly not be described as being “substantial”, “exceptional” or “overriding” in the planning balance.
287. It is noted that the above benefits are all generic merits of the development which would arguably occur regardless of where the ABP plant was to be sited. In terms of the specific application site, it is concluded that, subject to the suite of planning conditions and a s.106 legal agreement, as recommended above, the proposed development would be acceptable in relation to odour, noise, highways, flood risk and drainage. It is therefore acceptable in relation to CSDMP policies DM3, DM14, DM15 and DM16 and CLLP policies LP5, LP13, LP14 and LP26 insofar as they relate to these specific issues.
288. Turning then to matters where there are possible conflicts with planning policy. It has been concluded that the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there are no existing alternative sites which could accommodate the proposed development (not least the existing site at Jerusalem Farm, Skellingthorpe) and that it is considered the applicant has not adopted a sufficiently broad and robust analysis of alternative sites, including non-allocated sites in existing settlements and potentially sites in the open countryside (if justification for this was provided).
289. It has also been concluded that no need for the development has been demonstrated, either in terms of a market or local economic need; or in relation to the need for the development to be in this, or indeed any, open countryside location.
290. As established above, the proposed development is not in accordance with CSDMP policy W3 in terms of the proposed open countryside location, however, CLLP policies LP2, LP5 and LP55 allow for certain types of development to be located in the countryside in specific circumstances. It is therefore necessary to consider these policies to establish whether the
Page 170 development complies with these policies and if so, whether that outweighs the lack of compliance with policy W3.
291. In relation to policy LP2, part 8(b) of that policy is of relevance as it makes provision for the allowance of development proposals which are in accordance with other policies in the CLLP, including policy LP5. Part 8(b) of policy LP2 sets out four types of development which may be permitted in the countryside, if the development is compliant with policy LP5, three of which are of relevance to be considered in this case.
292. Policy LP5 allows for employment developments on sites which are not allocated or already in use for employment purposes, subject to six criteria, all of which must be met. The first criterion requires there to be a clear demonstration that there are no alternative sites or buildings within allocated sites or within the built up area of the existing settlement. The applicant has not adequately demonstrated that there are no alternative sites within allocated sites and that there is at least one potential alternative site on an allocated employment site (land west of Grange Lane, Newark). It is also considered that the applicant did not adopt an adequately broad approach to the consideration of existing settlements. The proposed development therefore fails to meet this first criteria.
293. The second criterion requires the scale of the proposal to be commensurate with the scale and character of the existing settlement. The application site does not lie within an existing settlement, however, the large scale, in terms of its size and height, of the development is not considered to be appropriate to the scale and character of the countryside site, and the overall locality, within which it is proposed.
294. The third criterion requires there to be no significant adverse impact on the character and appearance of the area, and / or the amenity of neighbouring occupiers. Subject to the recommended conditions, it is considered that the proposed development would not have adverse amenity impacts in relation to noise or odour on nearby residential properties. However, the application site is located on a prominent ridge in the open countryside. The development is proposed to include a range of large scale structures, a broad expanse of lorry parking and is proposed to be lit. It is concluded that the development would have adverse landscape and visual impacts and as such would have significant adverse impacts on the character and appearance of the area, particularly when viewed from the south and south west. It is therefore contrary to this criterion of the policy.
295. Subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions and s.106 legal agreement, it is concluded that the proposed development would not have adverse impacts on the local highway network and therefore is compliant with this criterion of policy LP5.
296. No evidence has been provided by the applicant regarding potential impacts on the viability of delivering any allocated employment sites as a result of
Page 171 the proposed development, however, it is not considered that the development proposals would result in a conflict with this criterion.
297. The final relevant criterion requires proposals to maximise opportunities for modal shift away from the private car. It is acknowledged that this is a rural location and there are no public transport options available to staff wishing the access the site. However, measures could be secured through a Travel Plan, required as a planning condition if permission is granted, to encourage measures such as car sharing. The application also proposes to provide a mini-bus form of transportation for apprentices to access the site. It is therefore concluded that, subject to the recommended condition, the proposals would not conflict with this criteria.
298. In order for development to be acceptable under policy LP5, all six of the above criteria must be complied with. The proposed development does not comply with three of the criteria. The proposed development is therefore contrary to policy LP5. Consequently, it cannot comply with part 8(b) of policy LP2.
299. For the sake of completeness, consideration is also given to the three criteria of Part 8(b) which allow for development in countryside locations. The first allows for development which is demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture. Whilst it is accepted that the proposed development plays an important role in the agricultural industry, the development’s location in the countryside is not demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture, either in relation to any specific agricultural unit, or the agricultural industry as a whole. It therefore fails to comply with this criteria. Policy LP2 also allows for waste developments in the countryside which are in accordance with separate Minerals and Waste Local Development Documents. As stated above, the principle of the location of this development is contrary to policy W3 of the CSDMP and so it does not comply with this criteria of policy LP2. Policy LP2 also allows for development which falls under policy LP55.
300. Part E of policy LP55 deals with non-residential development in the countryside and sets out four criteria, all of which must be met, in order for such development to be supported. Part E(a) requires that the rural location of the enterprise is justifiable to maintain or enhance the rural economy or the location is justified by means of proximity to existing established businesses or natural features. As stated above, it has not been adequately demonstrated that the proposed development is required to be in a countryside location to support the rural economy (agriculture) and there are no existing established businesses or natural features which justify the proposed location. The development therefore fails to comply with part E(a) of the policy.
301. Part E(b) requires that the location is suitable in terms of accessibility. As stated above, it is considered that, subject to the imposition of the recommended conditions and s.106 legal agreement, the development is
Page 172 suitable in relation to accessibility and is therefore in compliance with this criterion.
302. Part E(c) requires that the location would not result in conflict with neighbouring uses. It is not considered that the proposed development would conflict with nearby residential and commercial uses in terms of amenity.
303. Finally, part E(d) of policy LP55 requires that the development is of a size and scale commensurate with the proposed use and with the rural character of the location. The proposed development, in terms of its constituent elements and the choice of a 35 metre stack rather than a 25 metre stack to achieve better odour and air quality results, is considered to be of a size and scale which is commensurate with its use. However, the site on which it is proposed to be located is not considered to be acceptable and the size and scale of the development would lead to adverse landscape and visual impacts, harmful to the rural character of the location. The development is therefore contrary to part E(d) of the policy.
304. The development does not meet the requirements of policy LP55 part E and as such, is not in accordance with policy LP2 either.
305. Overall therefore, as a matter of principle, the siting of the development in this open countryside location is contrary to CSDMP policy W3 and CLLP policies LP2, LP5 and LP55. North Kesteven District Council has objected to the proposed development due to it not being in accordance with these policies.
306. In light of the size, scale, height and bulk of the proposed development, together with the external lighting, it is considered that the proposals would have significant adverse landscape and visual impacts and as such would be harmful to the character and appearance of the countryside. The proposals are therefore contrary to policy DM3, with respect to visual intrusion and illumination, and policy DM6 of the CSDMP, and CLLP policies LP5, LP17 and parts (c), (g), (i) and (q) of policy LP26. Policy DM6 and policy LP17 make provision for developments which would result in adverse landscape and visual impacts (policy LP17, states exceptionally) if the impacts are outweighed by the benefits of the scheme. In this case, whilst there are benefits of the scheme, as set out above, none of these benefits, nor the combination of all of them, are considered to provide sufficient justification, or in the case of policy LP17, be overriding benefits, to outweigh the landscape and visual harm which would be caused to the character and appearance of this countryside location.
307. In relation to nature conservation, and specifically bats, it cannot be concluded that the proposed development would not have significant adverse impacts as the information submitted to date is not adequate. Given that bats are a protected species, a precautionary approach must be adopted. Policy LP21 seeks to protect, manage and enhance habitats and species and paragraph 175 of the NPPF requires a consideration of
Page 173 alternative sites with less harmful impacts to be considered, if harm cannot be avoided. It cannot be concluded at this stage that the development would comply with policy LP21 and the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there are no alternative sites for the provision of ABP processing, therefore it cannot be concluded that the proposed development would be in accordance with the NPPF in this respect.
308. It has been established above that the proposed development would be highly damaging to the setting of a scheduled monument; it would be harmful to the setting of non-designated assets; and would result in the loss of non-designated assets within the application site. Policy DM4 of the CSDMP sets out the circumstances in which planning permission can be granted for development proposals which have adverse impacts on the historic environment as three criteria, the first of which must be met and then one of the second or third criteria must also be complied with. The first criterion is it must be demonstrated that the proposal cannot reasonably be located on an alternative site to avoid harm. As has been stated, the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there are no alternative sites which would avoid adverse impacts on the aforementioned heritage assets. The first criterion is therefore not complied with and the development is therefore contrary to policy DM4. Nevertheless, for completeness, consideration will also be given to the following two criteria. The second criterion requires that harmful aspects can be satisfactorily mitigated. No measures have been proposed which would mitigate the harm caused by the proposed development on the heritage assets. As noted above, the ability to record evidence of our past is not a mitigating factor, as has tried to be argued by the applicant. The development therefore does not comply with this criterion.
309. The final criterion of the policy requires demonstration of exceptional overriding reasons which outweigh the need to safeguard the significance of the heritage assets which would be harmed. Part (c) of CLLP policy LP25 requires clear justification for the proposed development, especially if harm would be caused to the significance of the asset or its setting, so that the harm can be weighed against public benefits. These criteria reflect the requirement in paragraph 196 of the NPPF which requires harm to be weighed against any public benefits of the proposal. Paragraph 194 of the NPPF also states that any harm to the significance of a designated asset requires clear and convincing justification.
310. There needs to be two different levels of assessment in relation to weighing benefits against harm in relation to the heritage assets which would be adversely affected by the proposed development, because one asset is a scheduled monument, and therefore of the highest significance, and the other assets are non-designated heritage assets. It is considered that the harm caused to the setting of the scheduled monument would sit at the upper end of “less than substantial” harm. In accordance with the NPPF great weight needs to be afforded to this historic asset’s conservation. It is acknowledged that there are some public benefits (the NPPF limits benefits in the consideration of harm to scheduled monument to public benefits) to
Page 174 the proposed development, however, none on its own, nor a combination of all of them, are sufficient to weigh in favour of the development and justify the harm it would cause to the setting of the scheduled monument. The benefits are not considered to be exceptional or overriding, as required by policy DM4. There is no clear or convincing justification for the harm which would be caused by the proposed development. The harm caused to the setting of the scheduled Roman villa is therefore contrary to policy DM4, policy LP25 and paragraphs 194 and 196 of the NPPF.
311. In relation to non-designated heritage assets, paragraph 197 of the NPPF requires a balanced judgement to be made having regard to the scale of any harm or loss and the significance of the heritage asset. Dealing first with the non-designated assets at Brills Farm and Gallows Nooking Common. These assets form part of the rich historic landscape and provide evidence of a landscape with considerable time-depth. They are key elements in the setting of the scheduled Roman villa and are therefore of considerable importance. Turning to the non-designated assets within the application site which would be lost, or partially lost, as a result of the proposal. Site investigations which have taken place to date have revealed features of interest and finds relating the Iron Age and Roman settlement activities, including a potential Roman road link between the scheduled Roman villa and the Fosse Way. These non-designated are of considerable importance and it is possible that the road link ought to be treated in light of policies for scheduled monuments. The harm caused by the development to the setting and through the loss or partial loss of these non-designated heritage assets is not justified and is not outweighed by any, or all, of the benefits of the proposed development. It is therefore contrary to policy DM4, policy LP25 and paragraphs 194, 196 and 197 of the NPPF.
312. The issue of the safeguarding of minerals resources is discussed in detail above, however, two parts of the requirements of policy M11 of the CSDMP are required to be considered here. As set out above, policy M11 sets out criteria under which it is possible to grant planning permission for a non- minerals development in a mineral safeguarding area. The second part of the first criterion (the first part allows for developments where it is not practicable for prior extraction to take place) states that the development could also not be reasonably be sited elsewhere. It has already been concluded that the first part of this criterion had not been complied with, and it is also concluded that given the applicant has failed to adequately demonstrate that there are no alternative sites for the development, the proposals are also contrary to the second part of the criterion.
313. The third criterion of policy M11 allows for such development where there is an overriding need for the development to meet local economic needs, and the development could not reasonably be sited elsewhere. Again, the development does not comply with the second part of this policy as it has not been adequately demonstrated that no alternative sites are available. Additionally, no evidence of an overriding need (or otherwise) to meet local economic needs has been provided. The proposals therefore fail to satisfy this criterion of policy M11.
Page 175 314. Overall, the proposed development would constitute a non-minerals development in a minerals safeguarding area which would sterilise the mineral resource. None of the conditions which allow for such developments have been met and therefore the development is contrary to policy M11. The County Council’s Planning Policy officer has objected to the development because it fails to meet any of the criteria within policy M11.
315. Overall, there are benefits, including public and economic benefits, of the proposed development but these are not sufficient to outweigh any of the harm identified to be caused by the development, such that the harm could be justified and planning permission could be granted.
316. There are significant areas of conflict between the proposals and a number of policies in the CSDMP, CLLP and NPPF. The justification provided for the development is inadequate to weigh in its favour to the extent that it could be concluded to be acceptable, notwithstanding the policy conflicts.
Human Rights Implication
317. The Committee's role is to consider and assess the effects that the proposal will have on the rights of individuals as afforded by the Human Rights Act (principally Articles 1 and 8) and weigh these against the wider public interest in determining whether or not planning permission should be granted. This is a balancing exercise and matter of planning judgement. In this case, having considered the information and facts as set out within this report, should planning permission be granted the decision would be proportionate and not in breach of the Human Rights Act (Articles 1 & 8) and the Council would have met its obligation to have due regard to its public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.
Overall Conclusions
318. Overall, it is concluded that whilst the development as a proposed ABP processing facility, is a sustainable form of development, helping to push ABP up the waste hierarchy, and that it would have benefits, including public and economic ones, the proposed location is unacceptable, unjustified and would result in harm to heritage assets and the character and appearance of the countryside, is not demonstrated to protect the local bat population and would sterilise a mineral resource in a mineral safeguarding area. Consequently, the development is contrary to CSDMP policies W3, M11, DM3, DM4 and DM6, CLLP policies LP2, LP5, LP17, LP21, LP25, LP26 and LP55, paragraphs 170, 175, 189, 193, 194, 196, 197, 199 and 206 of the NPPF and characteristics C1, C2, I1 and N3 of the National Design Guide.
Page 176 RECOMMENDATIONS
That planning permission be refused for the following reasons:
1. The principle of the location of the development is contrary to Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (2016) (CSDMP) policy W3 and Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (2018) (CLLP) policies LP2, LP5 and LP55.
The site lies within the countryside. The site does not lie in or around any of the settlements identified in policy W3 as being acceptable locations for new waste facilities. The development is not of a type specified within policy W3 which can be permitted outside the specified settlements. The location is contrary to policy W3.
Policy LP2 restricts development in the countryside. The development does not meet any of the requirements of parts (a) or (b) of policy LP2 which allow for development in the countryside. It is not permitted by policy LP5; no evidence has been provided that the development is demonstrably essential to the effective operation of agriculture and as a result is required to be located in the countryside, either as a general principle, or in relation to this specific countryside location; it is not a proposal falling under policy LP55; and it is not in accordance with the CSDMP or the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Site Locations Document. The development does not meet the requirements of, and is contrary to, policy LP2.
The development is not located on an allocated or existing employment site and the application has failed to provide adequate evidence and justification as to why the development could not be accommodated on an existing employment allocation or an existing employment site, as alternative sites. The approach in the application to the consideration of alternative sites within the existing settlement is too narrow, particularly as the site is not located within a settlement, and it fails to sufficiently consider potential alternative sites within existing settlements. The development is contrary to policy LP5 is this regard.
Due to its size, scale, height, bulk, external lighting and location on a prominent ridge, the development would have significant adverse impacts on the scale, character and appearance of the area. The development is contrary to policy LP5 and LP55 in this regard.
No evidence has been provided which justifies the siting of the development in the countryside location in order to maintain or enhance the rural economy, nor is evidence provided to justify the location in relation to proximity to existing established businesses or natural features. The development is contrary to policy LP55 in this regard.
No evidence has been provided which justifies or demonstrates that the development is required to be located at this countryside location, or any
Page 177 countryside location, so there are no grounds and no justification to allow an exception to be made to the development plan policies which restrict development in the countryside.
2. In relation to the historic environment, the development is contrary to CSDMP policy DM4, CLLP policy LP25, NPPF paragraphs 189, 193, 194, 196, 197 and 199 and the National Design Guide characteristic C2.
The application fails to acknowledge, understand and assess the importance of the rich historic landscape within which the site is located, which is still legible today. The development would introduce a large-scale industrial type activity, which would operate 24 hours a day, between designated and non-designated heritage assets. The submitted documents are incomplete in their assessment of heritage assets and the approach taken to the assessment of the setting of heritage assets is flawed, resulting in the underplaying of the harm caused by the development. The application is consequently contrary to CSDMP policy DM4, CLLP policy LP25 and paragraph 189 of the NPPF in this regard.
The approach to dealing with “less than substantial harm” to heritage assets is incorrect and results in inadequate justification for the development being pursued.
The development would be highly damaging to the setting of the scheduled monument “Roman villa west of Hill Holt Farm, Norton Disney”. There are no public benefits of the development which alone, or in total, outweigh the harm caused and no acceptable justification is provided for the harm, contrary to CLLP policy LP25 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF.
The development would be harmful to the setting of the non-designated heritage assets at Brills Farm and Gallows Nooking Common. These heritage assets are of considerable importance and form key elements in the setting of the scheduled Roman villa. The harm caused to the setting of these non-designated heritage assets is not justified, and is not outweighed by any, or all, of the benefits of the development, contrary to CLLP policy LP25 and paragraph 197 of the NPPF.
The development would result in the loss, or partial loss, of non-designated heritage assets within the site. These are of considerable importance, providing evidence of Iron Age and Roman settlement activity and form key elements in the setting of the scheduled Roman villa. The harm caused by the loss, or partial loss, of these non-designated assets is not justified, and is not outweighed by any, or all, of the benefits of the development, contrary to CLLP policy LP25 and paragraph 197 of the NPPF.
A precautionary approach must be taken to a potential Roman link road between the scheduled Roman villa and the Fosse Way Roman road, as this potential heritage asset should be considered subject to the policies for scheduled monuments, in accordance with footnote 63 to paragraph 194 of the NPPF. The application fails to adopt this approach. The development
Page 178 would result in the partial loss of the potential heritage asset, which is not justified and there are no public benefits which outweigh the harm caused, contrary to CSDMP policy DM4, CLLP policy LP25 and paragraph 196 of the NPPF.
The application has failed to provide adequate evidence and justification that there are no alternative sites on which the development could be located to avoid harm to the scheduled monument and non-designated heritage assets; there is no evidence of exceptional overriding reasons which outweigh the need to safeguard the significance of the scheduled monument or non-designated assets, taking into account their relative significance; and the harmful aspects of the development have not been demonstrated to be satisfactorily mitigated, contrary to CSDMP policy DM4.
The reliance on public benefits derived from an increased understanding of heritage assets through excavation of the site is not a reasoned justification for the harm caused, and is contrary to paragraph 199 of the NPPF.
3. The landscape and visual impacts of the development are contrary to CSDMP policies DM3 and DM6, CLLP policies LP5, LP17 and LP26, paragraph 170 of the NPPF and National Design Guide characteristics C1 and I1.
The size, scale, height, bulk, external lighting and location of the development on a prominent ridge would result in significant adverse landscape and visual impacts which would be harmful to the character and appearance of this countryside location. The application underplays the landscape and visual impacts of the development, particularly when viewed from the south and south west. The introduction of external lighting into this otherwise unlit, prominent, countryside location would have adverse impacts on the site itself and the surrounding area, drawing attention to the development and causing a lit visual intrusion into this otherwise dark sky location. The effectiveness of the proposed landscaping scheme to screen the development is flawed, but nevertheless, the principle of relying on planting and landscaping to screen, or partially screen, this type and scale of development, in such a prominent location, is not acceptable.
The development is contrary to policy DM3, with respect to visual intrusion and illumination. It is contrary to CSDMP policy DM6 and CLLP policies LP5, LP17 and LP26, with specific reference to parts (c), (g), (i) and (q), due to significant adverse impacts on landscape character and appearance of the area. There are no public benefits, alone or collectively, which outweigh the harm caused, to justify the development and the development does not accord with CSDMP policy DM6 or CLLP policy LP17 in this respect.
4. The development cannot be concluded to comply with CLLP policy LP21, paragraph 175 of the NPPF or National Design Guide characteristic N3, in relation to the protection of bats.
Page 179 The locality within which the site lies is of great importance for bats, in relation to both bat assemblage and species diversity, including the rare Barbastelle bat. The application underplays the importance of the locality for bats and consequently the bat survey work undertaken is inadequate and unacceptable. Additionally, there are examples of equipment and survey techniques which were used which are not in accordance with modern survey guidance. Consequently, it cannot be concluded that the recorded bat activity is accurate or representative of the level of bat activity at the site.
Bats are protected at local, national and international level. Barbastelle bats in particular, are afforded additional protection. A precautionary approach to the protection of bats is necessary, and in light of the deficiencies in the bat survey work undertaken, and the equipment and techniques used, it cannot be concluded that the development would not have significant adverse impacts to the favourable conservation status of the local bat species in their natural ranges. The application has failed to provide adequate evidence and justification that there are no alternative sites on which the development could be located which would avoid significant adverse impacts to the bat population at the site. The development is not in accordance with CLLP policy LP21 or paragraph 175 of the NPPF.
5. In relation to the protection of mineral resources within minerals safeguarding areas, the development is contrary to CSDMP policy M11 and paragraph 206 of the NPPF.
The site lies within a Sand and Gravel Mineral Safeguarding Area and contains a resource of mineral which is worthy of safeguarding. The application has failed to adequately demonstrate that the prior extraction of the mineral resource would be impracticable. The application has failed to provide adequate evidence and justification that there are no alternative sites on which the development could be located to avoid sterilising this mineral resource. No overriding need for the development to meet local economic needs has been demonstrated. The development is not temporary, minor or part of an allocation in the development plan. The development does not qualify as an exempt type of development. The development fails to comply with any of the criteria of CSDMP policy M11 and is therefore contrary to this policy.
Appendix
These are listed below and attached at the back of the report
Appendix A Committee Plan
Page 180 Background Papers
The following background papers as defined in the Local Government Act 1972 were relied upon in the writing of this report.
Document title Where the document can be viewed
Planning Application File Lincolnshire County Council, Planning, Lancaster 18/0714/CCC House, 36 Orchard Street, Lincoln
National Planning Policy The Government's website Framework (2018) www.gov.uk
National Planning Policy for Waste (2014)
National Design Guide (2019)
Environment Agency “How to comply with your permit – H4 Odour Management” (2011)
DEFRA “Sector Guidance Note BIPPC SG8: Secretary of State’s Guidance for the A2 Rendering Sector” (2008)
Historic England “The Setting of Heritage Assets” (2017)
Lincolnshire Minerals and Lincolnshire County Council’s website Waste Local Plan Core www.lincolnshire.gov.uk Strategy and
Development Management Policies (2016)
Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan Site Locations (2017)
Central Lincolnshire Local North Kesteven District Council’s website Plan (2017) www.n-kesteven.gov.uk
Page 181 Newark and Sherwood Newark and Sherwood District Council’s website Local Development www.newark-sherwooddc.gov.uk Framework Core Strategy and Allocations: Amended Core Strategy (2019)
IAQM “Guidance on the Institute of Air Quality Management’s website Assessment of Odour for www.iaqm.co.uk Planning” (2018)
Nottinghamshire Bat Nottinghamshire Bat Group’s website Group “Nottinghamshire www.nottsbatgroup.org.uk Barbastelle Project – Summary Report” (2018)
This report was written by Natalie Dear, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]
Page 182 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 3 FEBRUARY 2020
o
35.2m C o n s t
B d Mast y
y Ponds Bd rd Wa & ED
1.2 Pond
Pond
Pond Well
Pond
H Tk 2m 1.2
P
a t h
( u m
) Track
South Track
Potter Hill Farm
Potter Hill Plantation
D r a Hill Holt Wood in
Pond Hill Holt Nottinghamshire
Pond
y a W D e A ss O o R F N A M O R
NO RTH SCAF FOLD LANE
y d B t ns o C o C RO MAN ROAD
Issues
f e D
Track
Pond
F O Folly Lane L
L
Y
L
A
N
E
ROMAN VILLA
(site of)
n
i
a
r Pond D
36.3m Site Of Application The Woodhey
Issues
Track
Hill Holt Farm D ) r m a
u i ( n th a P
16.6m
SOUT H SCA FFOLD LANE (TRAC K) n i
a
r
D
y -b y a L Villa Farm
D
r
a
i
n
6 4 A
FB
A46 and County Boundary 35.4m
y The d B t s n o C o Big Thorns C
D r a in
f e D
Drain
s
n i
a
r
D
High Spring
F O L L Y
L A N E
34.9m in a r D
Drain
ck Tra
Wind Turbine Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west
33.2m
) 34.4m 95 GP (C1 oad rk R ewa N Richina Brills Hill
36.3m
Tank
T
r
a
c
k
Brills Farm
D
r OAD a R i ARK n NEW
T
r
a
c
k
Lincolnshire County Council CS
Tra ck rain You are permitted to use this data solely to enable you to respond to, D
C o C on st B dy or interact with, the organisation that provided you with the data.
n
i
a
r YouD are not permitted to copy, sub-licence, distribute or sell any of theReservoir data to third parties in any form. Reservoir
Pond
k c © Crown copyright and database rights 2019 a
r
T
T
r
a
c OS Licence number 100025370 k
Location: Description: Villa Farm Erection of an animal by-products processing facility Folly Lane Norton Disney Application No: 18/0714/CCC18/0714/CCC Scale: 1:7500 Page 183 This page is intentionally left blank