The future of a plan for another anaerobic digestion (AD) plant in South Holland is now in the hands of Sajid Javid MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Planning committee councillors granted permission for Andrew Branton’s application for land south of Counter Drain Drove in Tongue End, but it is now subject to a call-in procedure.
The proposal is for 43,250 tonnes of feedstock to be used annually to produce biomethane gas for the National Grid. The by-product would be a mixture of dry and liquid, which is not waste and can be used as fertiliser.
The plan is expected to generate 11,448 two-way vehicle movements per year.
There was mutual acceptance that the applicant had altered the original plan considerably to alleviate some of local residents’ concerns.
A committee meeting on January 4 heard from Mr Branton and Machala Escott, chairman of the committee opposing the application.
Mr Branton said the plan had been invested in by two family businesses which live and work in the district (the other being Nicholas Watts) and the plan would go someway to helping the “potentially bleak future” which agriculture and energy supply in the UK is facing.
He added: “As a community we must embrace innovation, change and local development which are overwhelmingly positive for the greater good.”
Objectors’ points centre on transport movements, odour, visual impact and pollution which they say the plant would generate.
Ms Escott said the only beneficiary would be the applicant’s pocket.
She added: “The beautiful vista will be irreversibly blighted by an industrial-size plant that has no effective visual mitigation measures.”
The plan changes came after a visit by planning officers, councillors and residents to an AD plant in Oxfordshire. Case officer Mark Simmonds told the meeting that from 300m away there was a “whiff ever so occasionally”.
Some councillors voiced concern over the location but the plan was passed 9-5 on a vote.
Ms Escott said after the meeting: “The planning committee failed to adequately assess the application against the Local Policy Plan, resulting in a lacklustre debate and a disregard of significant issues relating to locality and reduction of residential amenity.”
