Controversial plans for an anaerobic digestion facility near Grantham have sparked more than 300 objections — with residents urging councillors to listen to them and ditch the scheme.
Planning officers at South Kesteven District Council have recommended the approval of Ironstone Energy’s proposal for a 7.1-hectare facility near Sewstern Road, Gunby, at a meeting today (Thursday, January 9).
Councillors have been told that the plans will provide renewable energy, including 150 GWh per year of gas to power 13,000 homes — but residents have raised a string of concerns and questioned the picture painted by the company.
Proposal by Ironstone Energy Limited, a subsidiary of Future Biogas Ltd, for an anaerobic digestion facility
The applicant says the plan will support rural diversification, allowing Buckminster Estate and nearby farms to supply energy crops and enhance biodiversity.
Officers conclude that the concerns raised by the public are outweighed by the benefits of renewable energy generation and biodiversity improvements — but residents want councillors to ignore this and side with them instead.
The proposed development has received 367 letters of representation, including 330 objections and no support. An online petition has also raised 1,207 signatures.
Protesters at the site in June 2024. Image: Toby Roberts
Residents do not like the idea of installing an industrial project on greenfield land and raised concerns with its impact on ‘residential amenity’ and potential effects on food security due to the use of agricultural land for energy crops.
Objectors also cited environmental concerns, including CO2 emissions, sustainability, and impacts on wildlife and highways, especially from increased HGV movements. They fear that traffic predictions are not accurate.
The applicant suggests there will be 70 daily HGV movements (490 weekly), though concerns remain it could be higher.
Issues were also raised about the site’s safety, a lack of community benefit and missing planning documents.
Objectors believe the power will serve industry, not homes.
They feel the number of objections to the plans is significantly higher than the planning officer’s report suggests, and that it does not balance with the support.
Vanessa Tombs, one of the objectors, said: “Three parish councils and 330 local residents oppose this application.
“There have been zero responses in support—despite it being a renewable energy project.
“This is likely because the site proposed is wholly inappropriate.
“New industrial facilities generating up to 490 HGV journeys a week should be sited adjacent to an A-road—not in open countryside where the nearest road is an unclassified narrow lane.
“Opponents hope that the meeting will not simply ‘rubber-stamp’ a decision, but that councillors will make up their own minds after hearing both sides of the debate.
“The application does not comply with policy and contains too many failings to be approved.”
Colsterworth and District Parish Council also raised objections, arguing the development does not comply with local policies and would harm the rural landscape and residential amenities.
“The planning application clearly has no support from the local community,” said the report.
Residents also highlighted environmental concerns, such as odour, noise, and pollution, and called for more detailed surveys.
Additionally, they requested an agreement to pay for road safety improvements, including speed cameras and road sign upgrades.
The Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE) has backed objectors, adding: “Such a huge development will have an unacceptable impact on the rural countryside close to the development.
“It will be highly visible for some distance and of a greater scale than any other in the UK.”
Statutory consultees, including Lincolnshire County Council’s highways department, have raised no objections, stating they are satisfied with traffic control details.
“The proposed development would not be expected to have an unacceptable impact on highway safety or a severe residual cumulative impact on the local highway network or increase surface water flood risk, and therefore does not wish to object to this planning application,” said the county’s response.
Leicestershire County Council added: “The number of HGVs associated with this development is negligible when compared to the Annual Average Daily Traffic.
“Therefore, it is not considered that the proposal will have a severe impact on the local highway network.”
The planning committee will review the application during a meeting on Thursday, January 9.
Once operational, the site would employ six full-time staff for the project’s duration.
The site is 15 km east of Melton Mowbray, 15 km south of Grantham, and 2.3 km southeast of Buckminster.
The applicant chose the site for its proximity to the high-pressure gas grid network south of the location.
Furthermore, the plant’s location is considered ideal for collaboration with nearby agricultural enterprises to supply biomass in the form of purpose-grown energy crops.
It has been stated that the facility could lead to odour emissions.
However, the applicant explained: “Dispersion modelling was undertaken in order to predict odour concentrations at sensitive locations as a result of emissions from the relevant sources.
“The results indicated that impacts were predicted to be not significant at all identified receptors. Residual air quality and odour effects as a result of the development are predicted to be not significant, in accordance with the relevant guidance.”
Officers recommended granting the application, noting 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.
“The impacts that could result from the establishment of an AD plant—including heritage, noise, odour, ecology, drainage, and traffic—were assessed, and the conclusion was that there would not be any significant adverse impacts, with there being an improved situation in relation to ecological impacts and a resultant gain in biodiversity net gain,” they said.
“All other impacts assessed above are considered to be capable of being mitigated to a position of being in accordance with the development plan.”
What do you think? Let us know your views in the comments below…