Opponents of an anaerobic digestion plant have welcomed a vote to defer the final decision after heavy weather prevented site visits from going ahead.
South Kesteven District Council was set to vote on a 7.1-hectare facility near Sewstern Road, Gunby, today (January 9).
Planning officers had recommended that the plans from Ironstone Energy, a subsidiary of Future Biogas, be approved.
Protesters at the site in June 2024. | Image: Toby Roberts
Adverse weather, including floods and cold weather earlier this week, meant committee members were unable to conduct site visits.
As a result, the committee voted to defer the applications to a future meeting – understood to be on January 23.
The plans have sparked more than 330 objections and a petition with 1,200 signatures, both of which were part of the report.
Proposal by Ironstone Energy Limited, a subsidiary of Future Biogas Ltd, for an anaerobic digestion facility
A spokesperson for the Block Biogas Located in Open Countryside in Kesteven (BLOCK) campaign welcomed the deferral, saying site visits were essential to “provide an opportunity for planning committee members to see how unsuitable our single-track lanes are for a huge increase in HGVs, including CO2 and propane gas tankers”.
They added: “The postponement gives us a further opportunity to reassure our communities that a planning officer’s recommendation to grant permission is only one thing the committee takes into account.”
The group claims the application contains errors and lacks sufficient detail to reassure the community.
The proposed location for the plant. Photo: Ironstone Energy
They also argue that some planning conditions proposed would not be adequate.
An additional information report was recently published to the agenda, including further objections from residents and comments from Buckminster Parish Council, South Witham Parish Council, and Corby Glen Parish Council.
The BLOCK spokesperson added concerns that the developers might be unable to satisfy planning conditions.
Objectors are concerned about greenfield land use, food security, and increased HGV movements, which they doubt are accurate.
Environmental concerns include CO2 emissions, sustainability, and impacts on wildlife.
Objectors believe the energy generated will serve industry rather than homes.
Vanessa Tombs, another resident opposing the plans, said opponents were ready to present their case but understood the reason for the deferral.
“It is important for members of the planning committee to have their site visit before they vote.
“Then they will see for themselves the open countryside under threat, both at the main site and along the 1.5km road that will need to be built just to connect the site to the nearest B road.
“If approved, this industrial site will set an unacceptable precedent, and it will be unique in not being adjacent to an A road.”
If approved, Ironstone says the facility will provide renewable energy, including 150 GWh of gas per year—enough to power 13,000 homes.
The applicant says the plan will support rural diversification and enhance biodiversity.
Officers conclude that the public’s concerns are outweighed by the benefits of renewable energy generation and biodiversity improvements. However, residents want councillors to side with them instead.
Statutory consultees, including Lincolnshire County Council’s highways department, have raised no objections, stating they were satisfied with the traffic control details and that the development was not “expected to have an unacceptable impact” on highway safety, the network or surface water flood risk.
Once operational, the site would employ six full-time staff.
The site, near a high-pressure gas grid, is 15 km from Melton Mowbray, 15 km from Grantham, and 2.3 km from Buckminster.
The plant’s location is also considered ideal for collaboration with nearby agricultural enterprises to supply biomass in the form of purpose-grown energy crops.
The facility could result in odour emissions. However, the applicant said modelling had indicated that impacts were predicted to be not significant.
Recommending approval, officers noted the development’s environmental benefits in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and supporting local climate goals.
Despite moderate adverse impacts on the landscape and ecology, they said mitigation measures and the overall benefits of renewable energy, local job creation, and economic contributions outweigh the negative effects.