Agenda Item 6.

Regulatory and Other Committee

Open Report on behalf of Richard Wills Executive Director, Environment & Economy

Report to: Planning and Regulation Committee

Date: 9 April 2018

Subject: County Matter Application - S45/02093/17

Summary: Planning permission is sought by Alan Hawkes (Farms) Ltd for the erection of a gas to grid anaerobic digestion plant on land currently used for the storage of farm waste plastic at land attached to Glebe Farm, Fen Road, . The development would comprise of five digestion tanks, a gas bag, gas flare, new building, weighbridge, propane tanks and feedstock storage area. As part of the development it is also proposed to upgrade the current access track from Fen Road. The main issues that need to be considered in the determination of this application are location, traffic and highway issues, surface water drainage and flooding, any impact on the landscape, and visual, noise and odour impacts.

Recommendation: Following consideration of the relevant development plan policies and the comments received through consultation and publicity it is recommended that conditional planning permission be granted.

Background

1. In June 2011 retrospective planning permission was granted (ref: (E)S45/0617/11) to use two existing farm buildings and associated land for the storage of waste farm plastics and to retain a weighbridge associated with this use. The conditional permission required the applicant to upgrade the access track leading to the site from Fen Road and whilst works were undertaken these were not completed. As the applicant had not complied fully with the requirements of the condition within the specified time the planning permission was “lost”.

2. In October 2013 a further planning permission (ref: (E)S45/1440/13) was consequently granted to regularise and allow the continuation of the waste farm plastics use. This permission differed from that granted in 2011 however as it excluded part of the land lying to the south of the existing

Page 57 buildings and allowed and expansion of the storage area to the west of the building.

3. The waste plastic storage use has now largely ceased and waste plastics are no longer being received at the site. The applicant is proposing to develop a gas to grid anaerobic digestion facility at the site and this would overlay the site area/land subject of permission (E)S45/1440/13, as well as include an area of arable land and an existing slurry lagoon located to the west of the permitted waste plastics operation.

The Application

4. Planning permission is sought for the construction of a gas to grid anaerobic digestion plant which would include five digestion tanks; a gas bag; gas flare; operations building; weighbridge; propane tanks; feedstock storage area and the upgrading of the current access from Fen Road at land attached to Glebe Farm, Fen Road, East Keal.

5. The development would comprise of the proposed erection of an anaerobic digester and associated equipment (the 'AD Plant') which would be used to produce digestate, heat, biogas and carbon dioxide (CO2). The AD Plant would treat approximately 49,000 tonnes of feedstock materials per annum which would comprise of a mixture of straw, grass silage, chicken litter and animal slurry. The approximate amounts of each of these wastes/feedstocks are as follows:

• Straw –15,000 tonnes per annum • Grass silage – 10,000 tonnes per annum • Chicken litter – 14,000 tonnes per annum • Animal slurry (e.g. pig/cattle) – 10,000 tonnes per annum

6. The main elements and plant and equipment associated with the development are as follows:

• 3 x Primary digester tanks (each 11m in diameter and 14m high) • 2 x Digestate storage tanks (each 14m in diameter and 14m high) • Sediment tank (4m in diameter and 2m high) • Buffer tank (14m in diameter and 6.5m high) • New operations building/shed (30m wide by 65m long and a maximum of 10m high) • Gas bag including 3.25m bunding (41.5m wide by 51.5m long and 2.4m high) • Feedstock storage area (65m wide by 112.7m long) • Effluent tank (16m in diameter and 4m high) • 3 x propane tanks (1.2m in diameter and 3m long) • Gas upgrade equipment (8m wide by 22m long and 14.27m high) • Gas flare (4.25m high) • Weighbridge (4m wide by 14m long)

Page 58 • Retention and use of two existing agricultural buildings (8.5m high) and a slurry lagoon.

North Elevation

South Elevation

West Elevation

Site Layout Page 59 7. The applicant proposes that the tanks and building would be dark grey or juniper green in colour and low level lighting would be installed to provide light during the winter. The site would be surrounded by a 2m high palisade fence and the entrance would have a 2m high gate that covers the width of the entrance track.

Feedstock Inputs

8. The proposed feedstock materials comprise of grass silage, straw, animal slurry and chicken litter. The applicant has stated that most of the straw, and some of the grass silage, would be grown and sourced from the adjacent and surrounding farmland and would therefore be sourced from within a 15-32 km radius of the site. The delivery of straw and grass silage would be seasonal, with straw being delivered in 25 tonne lorry loads and the grass silage being typically delivered by tractor and trailer. Upon delivery to the site the straw would be stored within containers and the silage would be stored on the concrete pad and covered in line with normal agricultural practice. The applicant has stated that straw that is currently stored on the site from the surrounding fields and later transported off site would be utilised as part of the feedstock.

9. Chicken litter is proposed to be delivered in 25 tonne lorry loads from sites within a 3-16km radius of the site. The chicken litter would be transported in sealed containers so as to avoid odour release and upon arrival at the site transferred directly into the feeding hopper which would take place inside the operations building. Feedstocks would be weighed prior to input to the system, this would enable management of the feedstocks to ensure that the delivery of the chicken litter would take place at the time it would be needed.

10. The applicant has indicated that the animal slurry (pig) could be pumped to the site from a farm approximately 1.5km mile away via an underground pipeline. At present animal slurry is delivered to the site and stored in the existing lagoon prior to it being spread on the land. The applicant states that the proposed pumping of the slurry via a pipeline would therefore reduce traffic movements to the site. Whilst the proposed use of an underground pipeline is noted, such a pipeline does not currently exist and no details relating to its construction or its route have been included or form part of this application. As a result, the construction and use of a pipeline does not form part of this proposal and therefore cannot be taken into consideration in the determination of this application. As a result, despite the information presented in the application any animal slurry brought to the site would, as is currently the case, have to be delivered via road.

11. Taking into account the sources and proportions of each feedstock, the applicant estimates that over half of the total feedstock materials would come from the surrounding area and would not be transported great distances to the site.

Page 60 Product Exports

12. As stated previously the main products resulting from anaerobic digestion process are heat, biogas (methane and CO2) and digestate.

13. The digestate produced by the facility would comprise of both a liquid and solid (fibrous) fraction. The liquid fraction would be applied to surrounding farmland as a replacement for chemical fertilisers. The solid (fibrous) element would be dried and processed on-site using the heat produced from the AD process and exported off-site and sold to mushroom growers. The dry fibrous material can be mixed with mushroom compost to create an ideal growing medium for mushrooms and used as a replacement for products that are currently imported from the Netherlands. It is anticipated that there would be 10,000 tonnes of dried digestate produced by the plant each year.

14. Biogas produced by the plant would be treated to separate out the CO2 and methane gasses. The AD plant would produce approximately 4,000,000m3 of methane gas which would be cleaned and upgraded prior to being fed directly into the national gas grid network. The applicant states that the production and export of gas rather than electricity to the grid is 40%more efficient. The proposed connection point lies approximately 500m northwest of the site just off Fen Road. A pipeline connecting the AD plant to this connection point would be installed by the gas supplier/distributor using their permitted development rights as a statutory undertaker. As a result, this connection does not form part of this application/proposal.

15. Finally, the CO2 gas would be liquefied on-site and then transported off-site in tankers for use in the food and drink industry. It is anticipated that around 5,000 tonnes of CO2 gas would be produced each year.

Access and Vehicular Movements

16. A Transport Statement (TS) has been undertaken and submitted in support of the application which gives details of the proposed traffic movements associated with the development and details of proposed highway and access improvements that would be undertaken as part of this development. A summary of the main findings of the TS are set out below:

• An assessment of Fen Road's carriageway has been undertaken which has concluded that the road is suitable to cater for the amount of traffic associated with this development. Due to the narrowness of Fen Road it is however proposed that passing bays be constructed within close proximity of the site access to ensure two HGVs could pass. Beyond these passing bays there are suitable field access points along Fen Road which could be utilised as vehicle passing bays between the A16 and the development site and vehicles would be able to pull up onto the verge to enable other vehicles to pass. • Access to the site would be gained via the existing track off Fen Road that runs between in the west to Toynton Fen Side. The existing track is currently gravelled but would be upgraded to

Page 61 hardstanding from the AD Plant site to where it meets the entrance and junction with the Fen Road. Passing bays would also be provided along the access road to enable vehicles to pass one another at sections along the route. • Assuming all feedstocks are imported by road, the projected vehicle movements associated with the delivery of feedstock materials would equate to approximately 8,908 loads (4,454 two-way movements) per annum. Based on a 6 day working week (312 days per annum) this would equate to around 7 loads (14 two-way movements) per day. The delivery of feedstock materials would however be seasonal with the number of movements being greater between May and October (e.g. 8 loads or 16 two-way movements) and lower between November to April (e.g. 3-4 loads or 6-8 two-way movements). A breakdown for each feedstock type is as follows:

Capacity Two-way Feedstock Tonnes Travel Mode (tonnes) movements Pig Slurry 10,000 Tanker 25 800 Chicken 14,000 HGV 25 1,120 Litter Grass 10,000 Tractor and 15 1,334 Silage Trailer Straw 15,000 HGV 25 1,200 Total 49,000 4,454

• Vehicle movements associated with the export of digestate (10,000 tonnes) and CO2 (5,000 tonnes) would add a further 600 loads (1,200 two-way movements) per annum which is an average of 2 loads (4 two- way movements) per day. • Accident data does not suggest any road safety concerns in the area.

Flood Risk and Drainage

17. The site is within Flood Zone 3, as identified on the Environment Agency Flood Maps and therefore a Flood Risk Assessment (FRA) has also been submitted in support of the application. The main findings of the FRA are set out as follows:

• the site lies entirely within Flood Zone 3 and is at risk of fluvial flooding from storm events up to 1 in 100 years however, the site is protected by an earth embankment flood defence with a minimum protection for a 1 in 100 year storm event; • fluvial flooding poses a low risk to the development subject to the recommended mitigation measures being implemented; • the vulnerability of the development to flooding from all other sources such as pluvial, groundwater and artificial bodies has been assessed and it is considered that all these sources pose a low risk to the development.

Page 62 18. The feedstock area and the area where the plant would be positioned would be hard surfaced with concrete. Surface water from the feedstock area would be routed to a detention basin located in the south west corner of the site, via a surface water drain and swale, prior to being discharged off site at a rate of 7.8 l/s. The effluent from the feedstock areas would be stored in a tank adjacent to the balancing pond. The proposed strategy states this would not increase flood risk at the site or elsewhere.

Landscape and Visual Impact

19. A Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) was undertaken in April 2017 over a 3km radius study area and a total of ten viewpoints were selected. The main findings of the assessment are as follows:

• the number of visual elements of the development would be limited by siting the plant close to existing buildings and by grouping the buildings together; • given the nature of the landform and the sparse levels of vegetation the proposed development would be seen throughout much of the study area, particularly to the south, and would result in a significant change in the view for some high sensitivity receptors immediately surrounding the application site and within 1km of the site; • the earth bunding and proposed planting to the south of the site would provide screening and reduce the visual impact of the larger structures and completely screen the smaller features of the development; • the significant effects of the proposed development would be limited to the character of the landscape of the site and immediate surrounding area, which would be a small part of the A1 Stickney to Reclaimed Fen; • the visual amenity of residents would be limited to properties up to approximately 1km from the proposed development; • the visual amenity of users of the bridleway would be limited to the south of the proposed development; • public highways in the study area include the A16 and A155. The LVIA predicted that for road users and their passengers significant changes in views would be unlikely to occur; • the report recommends that a landscaping scheme is developed, by way of mitigation and screening.

Page 63

Odour

20. Anaerobic digestion plants are fully sealed and enclosed systems and therefore there are minimal odours associated with the processing and digestion operations themselves. The main potential sources of odour would be from the handling and storage of the feedstocks.

21. Pig slurry is currently transported to the site and stored in the existing slurry lagoon prior to being spread on the land. Under this proposal pig slurry would continue to be delivered to the site via tanker and stored in the same lagoon until needed. When it is required it would then be piped from the lagoon to the AD Plant's buffer tank where it would pass into one of the two primary digester tanks.

22. Chicken litter would be delivered in sealed, walking-floor containers and fed directly into the hopper which is located within the operational building. Chicken litter would not therefore be stored or kept on site and this would therefore minimise the risk of any significant odours arising from the handling of this feedstock.

23. Grass silage would be stored in a clamp (as per normal farming practice) on the concrete yard and would be covered when not required. Straw is not odorous and so there would be very little odour associated with the delivery and storage of these feedstocks.

24. The only gases that would be released into the environment would be exhaust gases from the Combined Heat and Power (CHP) unit. The CHP unit is designed to ensure that any emissions fall within statutory limits.

Noise

25. There is the potential for some noise to arise from the operation of the plant and equipment and also associated with the vehicles during the delivery of feedstock materials and export of products. The site is however remote from sensitive receptors and the majority of operations would take place within sound attenuated buildings. As such the application does not consider any noise from the development to be of a high level or over and above that associated with the current permitted waste plastic storage activities.

Page 64 Habitat Survey

26. A Phase 1 Habitat Survey was completed in March 2017. The main findings of the assessment are set out below:

• there would be no significant natural habitats to be lost as a result of the proposal, and therefore mitigation is not considered to be necessary; • opportunities to create meaningful, long lasting, sustainable enhancements exist on the site. Data shows the surrounding area to be rich with bird species; • the report recommends bird boxes to be fixed to the buildings, wildflower mixes to be applied to the top edge of each ditch to improve foraging for birds and improve net bio-diversity gain; • the report sets out procedures to be undertaken to protect habitats during the construction phase which includes preventing harmful weeds on the land spreading onto neighbouring land; • avoidance, mitigation and compensation measures, together with enhancement recommendations, should either be conditioned where appropriate or full planning permission is withheld pending the agreement of mitigation, compensation (where necessary) and enhancement measures.

Hours of Operation & Employment

27. The AD Plant would be in operation 24 hours per day, with normal operating hours for the site being between 07:00-18:00 hours Monday to Saturday which is when staff would be on site and deliveries and exports of products takes place.

28. The AD Plant would employ a total of four people, two of which are currently being employed on the waste plastic recycling operation.

Site and Surroundings

29. The site is approximately 4.64 hectares in size and is approximately 2.5km south of East Keal and approximately 1.5km southwest of Toynton Fenside. is approximately 5.5km to the north east of the site and Boston is approximately 18km to the south west. The site is accessed from a dedicated track off Fen Road.

30. Agricultural fields surround the site and the site itself is comprised of a combination of agricultural land, a lagoon, agricultural storage sheds for farm machinery and a waste plastic storage area.

31. There is a network of public byways, footpaths and bridleways in the surrounding area, the closest of which is a bridleway approximately 250 - 300m south of the proposed development.

Page 65

View of site from access

Existing buildings

Page 66

Existing lagoon

Main Planning Considerations

National Guidance

32. National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (March 2012) sets out the Government’s planning policies for and 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 (summarised):

• Paragraph 14 states that there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development and therefore proposals that accord with the development plan should be approved (unless material considerations indicate otherwise).

• Paragraph 17 seeks to secure a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants of land and buildings and reducing pollution.

• Paragraph 28 promotes a positive approach to supporting the rural economy.

Page 67 • Paragraph 98 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should: approve the application if its impacts are (or can be made) acceptable. Once suitable areas for renewable and low carbon energy have been identified in plans, local planning authorities should also expect subsequent applications for commercial scale projects outside these areas to demonstrate that the proposed location meets the criteria used in identifying suitable areas.

• Paragraph 100 states that inappropriate development in areas at high risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere.

• Paragraph 103 states that when determining planning applications, local planning authorities should ensure flood risk is not increased elsewhere and only consider development appropriate in areas at risk of flooding where; following a site specific flood risk assessment and sequential test, and if required the exception test, it can be demonstrated that: within the site, the most must vulnerable development is located in areas of lowest risk, and development is appropriately flood resilient and resistant, including safe access and escape routes.

• Paragraph 109 states that the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by: preventing both new and existing development from contributing to or being put at unacceptable risk from, or being adversely affected by unacceptable levels of soil, air, water or noise pollution or land instability.

• Paragraph 120 states that to prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability, planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse effects from pollution, should be taken into account.

• Paragraph 122 states that land use planning should focus on whether a development is an acceptable use of land and the impact of the proposed use, rather than the control of processes or emissions themselves where they are subject to approval under pollution control regimes.

• Paragraph 123 seeks development that should not give rise to significant adverse impacts on health and quality of life and mitigate and reduce to a minimum other adverse impacts such as odour, including through the use of conditions.

• Paragraph 176 states that where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable in planning terms (such as environmental mitigation) the development should not be approved if the

Page 68 measures required cannot be secured through appropriate conditions or agreements. The need for such safeguards should be clearly justified through discussions with the applicant, and the options for keeping such costs to a minimum fully explored, so that development is not inhibited unnecessarily.

• Paragraphs 186 and 187 states that decision-taking should be approached in a positive way to foster the delivery of sustainable development and where possible planning authorities should work proactively with applicants to secure developments that improve the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

• Paragraph 206 states that planning conditions should only be imposed where they are necessary, relevant to planning and to the development to be permitted, enforceable, precise and reasonable in all other respects.

• Paragraph 215 states that due weight should be given to relevant policies in existing plans according to their degree of consistency with the framework. This is of relevance to the Minerals & Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Plan (2016) and Site Locations Document (2017) and the Local Plan (1999).

• Paragraph 216 directs decision makers to give weight to relevant policies in emerging plans according to the stage of preparation and that the more advanced the preparation, the greater weight that may be given and the degree of consistency of the relevant policies in the emerging plan to the policies of the framework. This is of relevance to the East Lindsey Core Strategy – Submissions Modifications Draft.

33. National Planning Policy for Waste (October 2014) - the Government is seeking a more sustainable and efficient approach to resource use and management and identifies positive planning as playing a pivotal role in achieving this. Waste Planning Authorities should consider the likely impact on the local environment and on amenity against the criteria set out in Appendix B - Locational Criteria. Of relevance to this application are considerations relating to flood risk, landscape and visual impact, nature conservation, odour, noise and traffic and access.

34. A consultation on proposed amendments to the NPPF (the 'Draft revised National Planning Policy Framework') commenced 5 March 2018. The proposed amendments do not fundamentally change the policies or objectives of the existing NPPF that are of relevance in this case (as identified above). In any case the draft NPPF is still at an early stage and therefore, whilst is capable of being a material consideration, carries little weight.

Page 69 Local Plan Context

35. Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Core Strategy and Development Management Policies (CSDMP) June 2016 - the following policies are relevant to this proposal:

Policy W1 (Future requirements for new waste facilities) states that the County Council will through the Site Locations document, identify locations for a range of new or extended waste management facilities where these are necessary to meet the predicted capacity gaps.

Policy W3 (Spatial Strategy for New Waste Facilities) proposals for new waste facilities, including extensions to existing waste facilities, will be permitted in and around the main urban areas and include Lincoln, Boston, Gainsborough and , amongst other towns.

Proposals for new waste facilities, outside of the above areas will only be permitted where they are for the biological treatment of waste, including anaerobic digestion and windrow composting (Policy W5), treatment of waste water and sewage, landfilling and small scale waste facilities.

Policy W5 (Biological Treatment of Waste Including Anaerobic Digestion and Open-Air Composting) planning permission will be granted for anaerobic digestion, open air composting, and other forms of biological treatment of waste outside of those areas specified in Policy W3 provided that proposals accord with all relevant Development Management Policies set out in the Plan; where they would be located at a suitable 'stand–off' distance from any sensitive receptors; and where they would be located on either:

• land which constitutes previously developed and/or contaminated land, existing or planned industrial employment land, or redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages; or • land associated with an existing agricultural, livestock, food processing or waste management use where it has been demonstrated that there are close links with that use.

Policy DM1 (Presumption in favour of sustainable development) the County Council will take a positive approach that reflects the presumption in favour of sustainable development contained in the NPPF. It will always work proactively with applicants jointly to find solutions which mean that proposals can be approved wherever possible and to secure development that improves the economic, social and environmental conditions in the area.

Planning applications that accord with the policies in the Local Plan will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise.

Policy DM2 (Climate Change) proposals for waste management developments should address the following matters where applicable:

• implement the Waste Hierarchy, and in particular reduce waste to landfill;

Page 70 • identify locations suitable for renewable energy production and encourage carbon reduction/capture measures to be implemented.

Policy DM3 (Quality of Life and Amenity) planning permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided that it does not generate unacceptable adverse impacts arising from, amongst other factors:

• noise • dust • vibration • odour • litter • visual intrusion • run off to protected waters • traffic to occupants of nearby dwellings and other sensitive receptors.

In respect of waste development it should be well designed and contribute positively to the character and quality of the area in which it is to be located. Where unacceptable impacts are identified, which cannot be mitigated, planning permission will be refused.

Policy DM6 (Impact on Landscape and Townscape) planning permission will be granted for minerals and waste development provided that due regard has been given to the likely impact of the proposed development on landscape and townscape, including landscape character, valued or distinctive landscape features and elements and important views. If considered necessary, additional design, landscaping, planting and screening will be required. Where planting is required it will be subject to a minimum 10 year maintenance period.

Development that would result in residual, adverse landscape and visual impacts will only be approved if the impacts are acceptable when weighed against the benefits of the scheme.

Policy DM12 (Best and most versatile agricultural land) proposals for minerals and waste development that include significant areas of best and most versatile agricultural land will only be permitted where it can be demonstrated that no reasonable alternative exists.

Policy DM13 (Sustainable Transport Movements) proposals should seek to minimise road based transport and seek to maximise where possible the use of the most sustainable transport option.

Policy DM14 (Transport by Road) planning permission will be granted for minerals and waste development involving transport by road where the highway network is of, or will be made up to, an appropriate standard for use by the traffic generated by the development and arrangements for site access and the traffic generated by the development would not have an

Page 71 unacceptable impact on highway safety, free flow of traffic or residential amenity or the environment.

Policy DM15 (Flooding and Flood Risk) proposals for minerals and waste developments will need to demonstrate that they can be developed without increasing the risk of flooding both to the site of the proposal and the surrounding area, taking into account all potential sources of flooding and increased risks from climate change induced flooding.

Minerals and waste development proposals should be designed to avoid and wherever possible reduce the risk of flooding both during and following the completion of operations. Development that is likely to create a material increase in the risk of off-site flooding will not be permitted.

Policy DM16 (Water Resources) planning permission will be granted for minerals and waste developments where they would not have an unacceptable impact on surface or ground waters and due regard is given to water conservation and efficiency.

36. Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan: Site Locations (2017)

This document sets out the preferred sites and areas for future minerals and waste development. The proposal site has not been promoted as a preferred site however this does not necessarily mean that this development is unacceptable and instead needs to be considered in terms of its compliance with the locational criteria and policies as contained within the CSDMP (2016).

37. East Lindsey Local Plan Alteration (1999) - the following policies are relevant in the consideration of this application:

Policy A4 (Protection of General Amenities) states that development which unacceptably harms the general amenities of people living or working nearby will not be permitted.

Policy A5 (Quality and Design of Development) states that development, by its design, improves the quality of the environment will be permitted provided it does not conflict with other Policies of the Plan.

Policy DC6 (Re-use of Buildings in the Countryside) states that the re-use of farm and other buildings in the countryside for commercial or community uses will be permitted provided:

• the form, bulk, materials and general design of the existing buildings are in keeping with the surroundings; • the existing building is structurally capable of conversion; • it does not harm the character, amenities or appearance of the area or the amenities of nearby residents; • would not cause traffic or access problem;

Page 72 • does not substantially alter the form, setting, or design of the existing building; • it does not result in the loss of habitat for protected species of wildlife; • would not result in the dominance of non-agricultural uses in the countryside; • any outside storage forms a minor or ancillary part of the use.

38. East Lindsey Core Strategy (Submissions Modifications Draft) this document forms part of the emerging East Lindsey Local Plan. In line with paragraph 216 of the NPPF, given its stage of preparation, limited weight may be given to this document in the determination of this application however the following policies are of relevance to this proposal:

SP1 (A Sustainable Pattern of Places) this policy seeks to guide development according to the settlement hierarchy, whereby towns are identified at the top of the hierarchy, followed by large, medium and small villages. The open countryside, which includes small hamlets and groups of houses, are defined as the last tier of the hierarchy.

SP10 (Design) seeks to support well designed sustainable development, which maintains and enhances the character of the Districts towns, villages and countryside, this includes the use of high quality materials and design to reflect the character of the surrounding area.

SP13 (Inland Employment) the Council will support the growth and diversification of the local economy by building on the role of the inland towns as the focus for business development, this includes Louth and ; supporting proposals which bring forward employment land in or adjoining the large villages across the District; supporting new employment land elsewhere where it is in or adjoining a settlement or is an extension to an existing employment use and can be easily connected to the road network and is integrated into its setting in terms of layout and landscaping; strengthening the rural economy by supporting in the large, medium and small villages - development where it can provide local employment and re- use of buildings for rural businesses.

SP16 (Inland Flood Risk) the Council will support development for business, leisure and commercial uses in areas of inland flood risk providing it incorporates flood mitigation in its design.

Results of Consultation and Publicity

39. (a) East Keal Parish Council – supports the application but has questioned whether there would be any potential smell from the development; whether the applicant would be responsible for maintaining the road, and; commented that trees should be planted on the north side of the development so as to reduce visual impact. There are also some concerns about the proposal as there are children living in some of the properties on Fen Road and there is no footpath along this route.

Page 73 (b) Parish Council (adjoining Parish) - objects to the application on the following grounds (summarised):

• the AD plant is on a scale which is very industrial for the countryside and would be overbearing in nature; • the design and appearance of the plant would have an impact on visual amenity and would be seen from a distance, spoiling the view of the countryside; • Fen Road is not suitable for any vehicles, let alone HGVs, due to its poor state. There is a need for it to be brought to A class standard to avoid any further wear degradation and before any large traffic movements are allowed; • general concerns regarding serious disturbance from smells.

If planning permission is to be granted then the Parish Council requests that a Section 106 Planning Agreement be imposed which requires the road leading to and from the site to be brought up to a standard fit for all road users and for ongoing maintenance of the road.

(c) Eastville, Midville and New Leake Group Parish Council (Adjoining Parish) - objects as the number of HGVs and tractor and heavy trailer use on the highway would greatly increase and concerns that the digester would produce hazardous waste. Concerns about smells and fumes from the plant have also been expressed as well as impacts of noise associated with the increased vehicle movements to and from the site.

(d) Environment Agency - has no objection but has advised and commented that;

• The development would store and treat waste within 10m of a watercourse and therefore surface water run-off and run-off from waste treatment areas need to be satisfactorily managed to avoid contamination of the watercourse. Further information should therefore be sought to ensure that in the event of a leak, spill or failure, material from the AD Plant could be contained and recovered. Information on secondary containment methods around the buffer, effluent and digester tanks (including capacity and construction standards) is also advised as well as information on how effluent would be collected; • Under the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016 the applicant would require a Permit and the development would have to comply with the Water Resources Regulations 2010; • In terms of flood risk, the applicant is advised to sign up for the Flood Warnings Service and ensure that a Flood Evacuation Plan is put in place.

(e) Highways & Local Lead Flood Authority – has raised no objection but advised that conditions be imposed which would:

Page 74

(i) ensure that the vehicular access to the site is improved in accordance with the submitted drawings; (ii) secure details and the construction of three passing bays between the A16 Main Road and the access point to the new development on Fen Road (C629); (iii) secure further details of the proposed drainage arrangements for the site.

(f) Ministry of Defence - has no statutory safeguarding objection to the proposal.

(g) Natural England - has no objection and has commented that the development would be unlikely to affect any statutorily protected sites or landscapes. It is recommend that Standing Advice, in relation to protected species is applied and that any opportunities for biodiversity and landscape enhancements should be incorporated into the development.

40. The following persons/bodies were consulted on 9 November 2017 but had not responded within the statutory consultation period or by the time the report was prepared:

Local County Council Member, Councillor W Aron Adjoining Local County Council Member, Councillor Mrs W Bowkett Parish Council (Adjoning Parish) Parish Council (Adjoning Parish) Environmental Health Officer (East Lindsey District Council) Pipelines Agency Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust Lincolnshire Fire and Rescue Public Health (Lincolnshire County Council) Public Rights of Way (Lincolnshire County Council) Trees Officer (Lincolnshire County Council)

41. The application has been publicised by notices posted at the site and in the village of East Keal and in the local press (Lincolnshire Echo on 16 November 2017). Individual letters of notification were sent to the nearest neighbouring residents. Two letters of objection have been received as a result of this publicity. The main points of which are summarised below:

• this is an inappropriate place for a unit of this type to be constructed; • access is onto Fen Road which is not much more than single track, with no passing bays and two vehicles cannot pass at present, and it is in a poor state of repair due to the existing traffic; • the only way down Fen Lane between the houses is using private driveways, which is totally unacceptable; • there is too much traffic presently with the slurry tankers from the pig farm;

Page 75 • the digester would be viewed from miles around and is in an area of outstanding natural beauty, with specific flora and fauna; • a piped system for the delivery of slurry from Southview Farm has previously been turned down by the Environment Agency - therefore there would be no reduction in slurry tanker movements; • a spillage would be to the detriment of the environment and very difficult to clear; • the digester would be in a nitrate sensitive area and there would be a great loss of habitat and it would constitute to more industrialisation of the Fens; • there are private houses nearby and there is the problem of hydrogen sulphide escape, should there be bad maintenance or an accident; • the site would be floodlit at night and also flare off at times, resulting in a large degree of light pollution; • there are three other digesters in the surrounding area - how many can the area support? • the straw, silage etc would have to come on heavy haulage and farm vehicles- all access routes to the site are unsuitable and would cause loss of amenity to many villagers no matter which direction they choose to access the site; • the 17 return journeys per day between May-October and eight per day between November-April would require increased maintenance of Fen Road and it is hoped that Lincolnshire County Council are planning to monitor the condition of Fen Road to provide repairs where necessary; • Fen Road is already a very bumpy road, as shown by the many road signs along it, the applicant mentioned that the creation of two passing places would be created on Fen Road as part of the plan, which would be welcome and necessary with the increased traffic load.

District Council’s Recommendations

42. East Lindsey District Council - no objection but requests that conditions are imposed on any planning permission granted which would: require all HGVs accessing the site to adhere to routing and hours of operation; secure a landscaping scheme, and; a management plan setting out the procedures for the storage and handling of the feedstocks used by the AD Plant.

Conclusion

43. The application is seeking planning permission for a gas to grid anaerobic digestion plant at Glebe Farm, Fen Road, East Keal. The main issues that need to be considered in the determination of this application are location, traffic and highway issues, surface water drainage and flooding, any impact on the landscape, and visual, noise and odour impacts.

Location

44. Policy W1 of the CSDMP directs the Waste Planning Authority, through the Site Locations document, to identify locations for a range of new or

Page 76 extended waste management facilities within Lincolnshire where these are necessary to meet the predicted capacity gaps for waste arising in the County. The proposed development would use a mixture of feedstocks including agricultural crops and slurries for which no specific capacity gap is identified. This is because traditionally such agricultural products/wastes have been managed through existing practices of land-spreading and therefore are not classed as a controlled waste. In identifying locations for new and extended waste sites Policy W3 of the CSDMP expands upon the principles of Policy W1 and identifies the criteria for areas where new waste facilities would be permitted.

45. Policy W3 of the CSDMP recognises that it may not be possible to locate anaerobic digestion facilities in and around main urban areas and so consequently advises that such facilities should be considered against the criteria in Policy W5. Policy W5 identifies the locational criteria that would need to be met in assessing new proposals for anaerobic digestion plants and states that facilities should be located:

• at a suitable stand-off distance from any sensitive receptors; and • be located on land which constitutes previously developed land and/or contaminated land, existing planned industrial/employment land or redundant agricultural and forestry buildings and their curtilages; or • land associated with an existing agricultural, livestock, food processing or waste management use where it has been demonstrated that there are close links with that use.

46. In this case, the proposal site is not located close to any sensitive receptors or residential properties and largely occupies land that has previously been used in association with a waste management use. The application site also incorporates an existing slurry lagoon that is currently being used in association with that applicants farming activities. The waste plastics operation has now ceased and this development would reuse the land and buildings that were associated with that use. Whilst it is accepted that the development would involve an expansion and development of agricultural land that lies adjacent to the site, it does largely comprise of the reuse of previously developed land and therefore complies with the second criterion of Policy W5.

47. Finally, the applicant has indicated that the feedstocks serving the AD Plant would be sourced from the surrounding land, with the pig slurry coming from a neighbouring farm and also the digestate produced would be spread back on nearby land. Subject to this I am satisfied that the development would therefore meet the third criterion and have close links with the surrounding land. Given this, in terms of location, in principle, the development is considered acceptable and would not conflict with the locational criteria set out in Policy W5. However, notwithstanding the above, in order to be acceptable the development must also demonstrate compliance with all the relevant Development Management Policies contained within the plan.

Page 77 Highways and Transport

48. Fen Road is a C Class road and narrow in places and so does not always allow two vehicles to pass. Concerns have therefore been raised by local residents and by two Parish Councils regarding the suitability of this road given its condition and narrow carriageway. The applicant acknowledges the width of Fen Road and so has proposed to construct two passing spaces along its length as well as carry out improvements to the site access and track off from Fen Road which also includes the creation of 2 passing places along its length. The Highways Officer has raised no objection to this but has stipulated the number of passing places along Fen Road should be increased to three passing bays and that the access improvements are secured as a condition of the planning permission. Subject to these works being completed, Fen Road and the access track would be an acceptable standard and therefore capable of supporting this development and therefore not contrary to the aims of Policy DM14 of the CSDMP.

49. In terms of vehicular movements to the site, the applicant states that there would be approximately 16 vehicular trips per day between the months of May and October. The Highways Officer has confirmed that the continued transport of the slurry via road, rather than the piping of the slurry to site as originally indicated by the applicant, would not result in an unacceptable number of vehicular movements. The overall vehicular numbers, combined with the proposed highway improvements, would be of a scale not to cause detriment to the local highway network and local area, and would therefore not be contrary to Policy DM13 of the CSDMP.

Visual Amenity

50. The proposed development would be within a Fenland landscape with potential for far reaching views to and from the site. A visual and landscape assessment has been undertaken which concludes that the visual impact of the proposed development would however be limited to residents within a 1km radius, to a small part of the A1 Sibsey to Stickney Reclaimed Fen and to users of the bridleway to the south of the site.

51. In assessing the impacts of the development it is important to note that there are already two agricultural buildings present within the site. These two buildings are a maximum of 8.5m high, 18m wide and 23m long and would be set perpendicular to a proposed new operations building which would be 10m high, 30m wide and 65m long. The tallest structures on site would be the digesters at 14m and the gas flare at 14.27m. It is accepted that these structures would be taller than the existing buildings on site and that the proposed operations building, whilst being similar in height, would be much longer and wider than the existing buildings and therefore more industrial- like in scale compared to normal agricultural sheds/barns. Within the surrounding landscape there are other agricultural buildings and structures which are grouped in isolated clusters. The new building, tanks and equipment associated with the AD Plant would also be clustered around the existing buildings and, so far as possible, the appearance and colouration of

Page 78 the buildings, tanks and equipment have tried to reflect and be in keeping with that of the existing buildings and thus minimise their impact upon the immediate or surrounding agricultural environment. In order to try and help to minimise any visual impacts in the longer-term, the applicant has also proposed to carry out landscape planting along the northern boundary of the site which could be secured by condition. Consequently it is considered that the proposal would not result in an unacceptable visual intrusion in the landscape and would therefore not be contrary to Policy DM3 of the LMWLP and Policy A4 of the ELLP, which seeks to protect quality of life and amenity which includes visual amenity, or Policy DM6 which seeks to protect the landscape. It is also considered it would not be contrary to Policy A5, which seeks to foster good design.

Noise

52. Comments have been received expressing concern regarding the potential for noise nuisance arising from the proposed development. A noise assessment has not been carried out in support of this application however, based on experience with other AD Plants, noise associated with their operation is not unusually high. In this case the proposal site is quite remote and so not close to any sensitive receptors which could be at risk of potential noise exposure. All operations associated with the pre and post treatment of feedstocks would take place within the operations building, the fabric of which would help to act as a barrier and attenuate any noise. Other activities, such as the movement of the grass silage from the clamp and transferal to the operations building, would be carried out using mobile plant typical of that used in traditional farming. Additional transport movements to and from the site associated with the import and export of feedstocks/products would also give rise to some noise within the area, however, at a maximum these would equate to approximately 17 two way trips per day, or 3 per hour, between May to October. Any noise associated with this would have a minimal impact on the area.

53. No objection or concerns have been raised by either the District Council or the EHO in respect of noise and having considered the location and nature of the operations proposed, I am satisfied that the development would not be contrary to Policies DM3 of the CSDMP or Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local Plan.

Odour

54. The most significant potential source of odour would come from the handling and storage of feedstocks (primarily the pig slurry and the chicken litter) and digestate.

55. With regard to the pig slurry, although the applicant had indicated that this could be pumped to the site via an underground pipeline, no pipeline is in place and this application does not propose to construct one. As a result, the slurry would continue to be brought to the site in tankers and, as is currently the case, stored in a lagoon before it is pumped into the AD Plant

Page 79 for treatment. No complaints have previously been made regarding odours associated with the importation and storage of this slurry and no changes to this activity are proposed as part of this application. At present the pig slurry is spread onto the surrounding farmland untreated whereas under this proposal the slurry would be treated by the AD Plant. Therefore the treatment of the slurry could actually help to improve odours experienced at the site and surrounding area as the final digestate produced (which contains the treated slurry) would be less odorous than untreated pig slurry.

56. With regard to chicken litter, this would be delivered on an as needed basis and delivered in sealed containers and loaded into the feed hopper which is located within the new operational building. The applicant has not proposed to store chicken litter on the site and therefore this would remove any potential risk of odours associated with this activity.

57. In terms of the digestate, the applicant states that the vast majority of the liquid produced as part of the AD process would be recirculated and reused in the AD process. Any digestate produced however would be stored within the sealed tanks that from part of the AD Plant itself and therefore there minimal risk of odours associated with its storage.

58. Finally, the Environment Agency has raised no objection to the proposal but has confirmed that if planning permission is granted then the applicant would be required to also obtain an Environmental Permit before they could operate. An Environmental Permit would impose its own controls and conditions governing the site operations and activities and this would cover odour management. Notwithstanding this, it is recommended that a planning condition also be imposed which would require the applicant to submit an Odour Management Plan (OMP). Subject to this, and having taken into account the nature of the operations and distance between the development and any sensitive receptors, the development is considered unlikely to have a significant impact in respect of odours and therefore would not be contrary to Policy DM3 of the CSDMP or Policy A4 of the East Lindsey Local Plan.

Drainage and Flood Risk

59. The site is within Flood Zone 3, and is at risk of flooding from a 1 in 100 year storm event, however the site does benefit from earth embankment flood defences with protection for a 1 in 100 year event. The applicant states that based on defended modelled data supplied by the Environment Agency, the site has a less than 1 in 1000 chance of fluvial flooding. Other risks of flooding from the site including from pluvial and groundwater are considered to be low.

60. In terms of surface water drainage from the site, it is proposed to route it to a detention basin in the south west corner of the site and employ sustainable urban drainage features. The Environment Agency and the Highways Authority (as Lead Local Flood Authority) have not objected on either flood risk grounds or surface water drainage but have recommended that further

Page 80 details be secured by way of condition. It is therefore recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that further details of the proposed means of drainage are required to be submitted for approval before the development can commence. Such a condition would ensure that the development would not be contrary to Policy DM15 of the CSDMP and Policy SP16 of the East Lindsey Core Strategy.

Miscellaneous Comments/Issues

61. Pipeline: One of the representations received during the consideration of this application claimed that an underground slurry pipeline had previously been refused by the Environment Agency. Whilst an underground pipeline does not form part of this proposal, the Environment Agency has confirmed that their previous comments had been made in response to two applications that were handled by East Lindsey District Council which related to the current use of the lagoon (refs: S45/02128/14 and S45/01978/06). Their comments however, were that if a pipeline was proposed then the applicant would require a Permit but did not say a pipeline would be unfeasible or object to such a proposal. The Environment Agency also made further comments that their Groundwater and Contaminated Land Team had no comments to make on those applications.

62. Other AD Plants: Comments have been made regarding the existence of three other digesters in the surrounding area and the ability of the area to support further digesters. The proposed AD plant would generate energy from renewable sources and produce digestate to act as a soil conditioner/fertiliser thereby avoiding the need to import artificial fertilisers. The facility would also produce CO2 which can be recovered for use primarily by the food and drink industry. The generation of renewable energy by this type of development would contribute to the UKs target of producing 15% of energy from renewable sources by 2020 and would also help to treat agricultural wastes in a more sustainable manner.

63. At present the farmer is spreading untreated pig slurry on the surrounding farmland and if permission is granted then this would be replaced with digestate produced by the AD Plant. Given the vast expanse of farmland in the area there is no reason to suggest that this could not safely be accommodated within the local landscape despite there being other similar AD plants nearby.

Human Rights Implications

64. The proposed development has been considered against Human Rights implications especially with regard to Article 8 – right to respect for private and family life and Protocol 1, Article 1 – protection of property and balancing the public interest and well – being of the community within these rights and the Council has had due regard to its public sector equality duty under Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010.

Page 81 Final Conclusions

65. The proposed development is considered acceptable and would not conflict with the locational criteria set out in Policy W5 of the CSDMP and subject to the imposition of conditions, would not have an unacceptable adverse impact on the local environment or amenity of nearby residents and therefore not be contrary to the policies of the Lincolnshire Minerals and Waste local Plan, the East Lindsey local Plan or the emerging East Lindsey Core Strategy.

RECOMMENDATIONS

That planning permission be granted subject to the following conditions:

Commencement

1. The development hereby permitted shall be begun before the expiration of three years from the date of this permission. Written notification of the date of commencement shall be sent to the Waste Planning Authority within seven days of such commencement.

Approved Documents & Drawings

2. The development hereby permitted shall only be carried out in accordance with the following documents and plans unless otherwise modified by the conditions attached to this planning permission or details subsequently approved pursuant to those conditions. The approved documents and plans are as follows:

• Planning application form (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • Supporting Statement and Design and Access Statement (date stamped 8 January 2018) • Process Description (date stamped 5 September 2017) • Environmental Review (date stamped 5 September 2017) • Transport Statement (date stamped 5 September 2017) • Landscape and Visual Assessment (date stamped 5 September 2017) • Flood Risk Assessment (date stamped 5 September 2017) • Ecological Appraisal (date stamped 5 September 2017) • IGE03-SP-023 Site Plan (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE03-SP-028 Site Plan (date stamped received 12 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-Na-002 North Elevation Section A (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-Nb-002 North Elevation Section B (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-Nc-002 North Elevation Section C (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-Eb-002 East Elevation Section B (date stamped received 5 September 2017)

Page 82 • IGE04-EL-Ea-002 East Elevation Section A (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-Sa-002 South Elevation Section A (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-Sb-002 South Elevation Section B (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-SC-002 South Elevation Section C (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-Wa-002 West Elevation Section A (date stamped received 5 September 2017) • IGE04-EL-WB-002 West Elevation Section B (date stamped received 5 September 2017)

Pre-commencement Conditions

3. No development shall take place until a surface water drainage scheme for the site, based on sustainable urban drainage principles and an assessment of the hydrological and hydrogeological context of the development, has been submitted and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall:

(a) provide details of how run off will be safely conveyed and attenuated during storms up to and including the 1 in 100 year critical storm event, with an allowance for climate change, from all hard surfaced areas within the development into the existing local drainage infrastructure and watercourse system without exceeding the run-off rate for the undeveloped site;

(b) provide attenuation details and discharge rates which shall be restricted to 7.8 litres per second;

(c) provide details for the timetable and any phasing of implementation for the drainage scheme; and

(d) provide details of how the scheme shall be maintained and managed over the lifetime of the development, including any arrangements for adoption by any public body or Statutory Undertaker and any other arrangements required to secure the operation of the drainage system throughout its lifetime.

The approved scheme shall be maintained in full accordance with the approved details for the lifetime of the development.

4. No development shall take place until a detailed landscaping scheme has been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The landscaping scheme shall include information on the species, numbers, spacing and positions of all grasses, trees, shrubs, hedgerows and bushes to be planted as part of the development along with details of a 5 year maintenance and aftercare programme to be adopted to ensure their success commencing from the date the scheme has been implemented.

Page 83 The approved scheme shall be carried out in its entirety in the first available planting season following confirmation of the written approval from the Waste Planning Authority and any plants which die, are removed or become seriously damaged or diseased within the 5 year aftercare period shall be replaced in the next planting season with others of a similar size and species.

5. No development shall take place until details of an odour management plan, including details of actions to be taken in the event of a complaint, have been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority.

6. No development shall take place until details of the improvement works to be carried out along the access road from Fen Road to the site have first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme and details shall provide for a minimum of two passing places to be constructed along its route and also contain details of the surface upgrade work, including specification and materials to be used to be undertaken. Following the written approval of the scheme, all improvement works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with that scheme prior to any HCV traffic associated with this development entering the site.

7. No development shall take place until a scheme which provides for the provision of three passing bays between the A16 Main Road and the access to the site off Fen Road (C629) has first been submitted to and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. The scheme shall include details for the location, dimensions, design, materials, construction method, surfacing and timetable for their provision. Following the written approval of the scheme, all improvement works shall be carried out and completed in accordance with that scheme prior to any HCV traffic associated with this development entering the site.

*See Informative for more information

8. All vehicles leaving the site must turn left on to Fen Road and vehicles visiting the site must only turn right from Fen Road on to the access road.

Permitted Tonnages & Feedstocks

9. The feedstock materials for the anaerobic digestion plant hereby approved shall be restricted to 49,000 tonnes of feedstock per annum of slurry, chicken litter, straw and grass. All materials to be brought to the site shall be weighed at a weighbridge within the site. Weighbridge records shall be retained for at least two years and available for inspection by the Waste Planning Authority on request.

10. No external lighting shall be installed within the site unless details have first been submitted and approved in writing by the Waste Planning Authority. Any lighting installed shall thereafter be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

Page 84 11. No feedstock material shall be stored outside at any time other than grass silage which shall be stored in the silage clamps (as shown on Drawing No: IGE03-SP-028 date stamped received 12 September 2017). The material stored within the silage clamps shall not exceed four metres in height.

12. The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the Flood Risk Assessment dated September 2017 and received by the Waste Planning Authority on 5 September 2017. The plan shall be implemented in full for the duration of the development.

13. The plant shall be fitted with an automatic shut down mechanism that would be triggered in the event of flooding and would prevent the escape of flooding for up to 6.90mAOD.

14. The means of connection to the National Grid shall be by underground cable.

Reasons

1. To comply with Section 91 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

2. To ensure that the development is carried out in an acceptable manner and for the avoidance of doubt as to the development that is permitted.

3, 12 & 13 To ensure surface and foul waters from the site are appropriately managed so as to not result in the pollution of the water environment and to reduce flood risk to the area.

4, 11 & 14 In the interests of the visual amenity of the area.

5. In the interests of reducing odour pollution to protect the amenity of the area.

6 & 7 In the interests of safety of the users of the public highway and the safety of the users of the site.

8. To ensure vehicles visiting and leaving the site only use the section of Fen Road with the highway improvements in the interests of highway safety.

9. To correspond with the quantities of feedstock materials for which planning permission was applied for and to limit the scale of operations in the interests of the amenity of the area.

10. To minimise the impacts of light pollution on the local landscape and in the interests of the general amenity of the area.

Page 85 Informatives

Attention is drawn to:

Condition 7 - Prior to the submission of details relating to the passing places to be constructed on Fen Road the applicant must contact the Divisional Highways Manager on 01522 782070 for advice on the required specification and construction information. Details relating to the materials, specification and construction methods as agreed with the Divisional Highways Manager should then be included in the details submitted pursuant to Condition 7 of this permission.

Appendix

These are listed below and attached at the back of the report

Appendix A Committee Plan

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, Lancaster House, 36 (E)S206/1864/17 Orchard Street, Lincoln

National Planning Policy The Government's website Framework (2012) www.gov.uk

Local Plan Lincolnshire County Council Website www.lincolnshire.gov.uk

This report was written by Sandra Barron, who can be contacted on 01522 782070 or [email protected]

Page 86 LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL PLANNING AND REGULATION COMMITTEE 9 APRIL 2018 

Road Fen 16 To A

Site of Application

Prevailing Wind Direction from the south-west 

LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL Reproduced from the 1996 Os Mapping with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (C) Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to civil proceedings. OS LICENCE 1000025370

Location: Description: Land attached to Glebe Farm Erection of a gas to grid anaerobic digestion plant, on land Fen Road currently used for the storage of farm waste plastic, to comprise East Keal five digestion tanks; gas bag; gas flare; operations building; weighbridge, propane tanks; feedstock storage area Application No: S/045/02093/17S/045/02093/17 and the upgrading of current access from Fen Road Scale: 1:10000 Page 87 This page is intentionally left blank