Landfill extension at Roxby Landfill Site, Winterton Road, Roxby

The site and its history

The landfill operates under a 2006 permission, which requires tipping to cease and plant and equipment to be removed by May 2026.

“ASSESSMENT Site and proposal This application seeks planning permission to vary condition 6 of WD/2006/0411 to extend the life of the adjacent Roxby Landfill Site to allow landfilling to continue until 10 May 2037, restoration by 10 May 2042 and for all items to be removed from the site by 10 May 2042 (EIA development). Planning permission was originally granted for restoration by controlled landfill at the site in 1992 (7/757/90).”

“A further application in 2006 (WD/2006/0411), under which the landfill site currently operates, was approved on 10 May 2006 to ‘vary condition 7 of 2002/1134 to allow tipping and phased restoration of the site to be carried out in accordance with the revised plans dated 19 July 2005 at Roxby Landfill Site, Winterton Road, Roxby’. Condition 6 of this permission states: ‘The permission shall have a duration of 20 years from the date the development commenced.”

Officer report

What officers recommended

Officers recommended approval because additional time was needed to fill the site and deliver its approved restoration scheme, with existing controls continuing.

“The site relates to the existing Roxby Landfill Site, Winterton Road, Roxby and seeks the variation of condition 6 to extend the lifetime of the existing landfill operations and subsequent restoration. No changes are proposed other than the proposed extension of time and minor revisions to phasing arrangements.”

“It is understood that the effects of higher recycling rates and lower levels of residual waste inputs is reflected across the whole of the UK and is therefore beyond the control of the applicant. The proposed timescale of an additional 11 years for landfilling with a further 5 years for completion of restoration is considered by the applicant to be realistic and would enable the approved restoration scheme to be delivered.”

Officer report

Consultees’ views

Technical consultees, councils and highways raised no objections, while Winterton Town Council highlighted litter, mud and wheel-washing concerns.

“CS16 North Lincolnshire’s landscape, greenspace and waterscape CS17 Biodiversity CS20 Sustainable waste management CS21 Minerals CS25 Promoting sustainable transport Housing and Employment Land Allocations Development Plan Document: PS1 Presumption in favour of sustainable development Inset 34 Roxby cum Risby and Inset 59 Ironstone Gullets CONSULTATIONS Lead Local Flood Authority: No objection or comments.”

“There are no proposals to vary this agreement. No objections or further comments. PARISH COUNCIL Winteringham Parish Council: No objections. Winterton Town Council: No comments to make on this application as it is understood that the landfill is not full, and capping it off whilst not full would cause serious issues with watercourses and drainage, although express concerns with regard to debris and litter being blown from the site onto the A1077 and mud on the A1077 from…”

Officer report

What residents said

Residents objected on grounds including odour, litter, traffic, noise, dust, vermin, visual harm, environmental effects and delayed restoration.

“PUBLICITY Publicised by site and press notice. 50 comments have been received from the general public, several people submitting more than one. A summary of the comments are set out below: • visual intrusion • negative impact on the local environment and residents • amenity impacts – increased vehicle movements, noise, odour, dust, litter, flies, rats and general environmental impact • odour – big issue, especially during summer and after…”

“problems already exist and extending the timescales will extend the length of time residents have to suffer the same issues • the focus should be on addressing existing failings, enforcing stricter standards, and ensuring an earlier closure and full restoration • the site is in breach of permit on multiple occasions • no compelling evidence that the restoration cannot be completed within the original timeframe • impact on property values…”

Officer report

Who spoke

An applicant representative addressed the committee, and the Chairman read a letter from three local ward councillors requesting a site visit.

Members’ debate

Members acknowledged strong local feeling and considered that visiting the site would help them assess the odour and proposed variation.

“Councillor C Ross acknowledged that there were strong feelings associated with this application. In her opinion, the odour emanating from the site was an issue, and suggested that members would benefit from a site visit to assess the impact of the variation.”

“Councillor C Sherwood agreed with Councillor Ross that there was merit in the committee visiting the site.”

Minutes

Why it was deferred

The committee deferred consideration to allow members to visit the site.

“It was then moved by Councillor C Ross and seconded by Councillor C Sherwood –”

“That consideration of the application be deferred to allow the committee to visit the site.”

Minutes