Minutes

Notes of Extraordinary Meeting held 1st August 2019 at 7.30 p.m.

The meeting was held in response to a planning application by Beeswax Dyson Farming Limited for the construction of a digestate storage lagoon and storage pad at Woodbeck Farm, Edlington.

Present:- Chairman Eric Buckley, Kathie Birks, David Birks Jacky Hutchinson, Mark Cousins, David Harwood, Margaret Harwood, Angela Stammers, Phyll Durow, Liz Rivers, Garry Rivers, Colin Dickinson, Sally Scarfe, Stuart Scarfe, Ian Willoughby, Bridget Bourn, Rowan Atkins, Wendy Gaunt, Susan Buckley (notes).

Andrew Bramley (Thimbleby Parish Council)

Ben Wills from Beeswax Dyson Farming Limited

The Chairman introduced Ben Wills who described the proposed plans and gave background information. It was explained that Edlington is farmed out of the Carrington business and the plans for Woodbeck Farm had already been implemented in other Beeswax businesses. The reason for introducing a storage pad and digestate lagoon was due to the storage taking place last year on the ground. A pad would be better as any waste will not drain directly onto the land. The digestate was described as being like a Baby Bio product in that it was liquid in form and its use would enable Beeswax Dyson Farming Limited to buy in less fertilizer. It had other purposes also; the gas provided could be used in their farm vehicles. Long term it was seen as a procedure of  ‘completing the circle’ whereby the fertilizer produced from the land would not only go back onto the land for the crops, but provide electricity and fuel for vehicles.

Any run off would go into the lagoon and the contents of the lagoon would then be sprayed onto the land. This would require the use of the same number of vehicles as at present, but there would be better management due to the product being on site, enabling its use over a concentrated period of time, instead of prolonged. By using a pad, the crop can be stored for longer.

For them it was a matter of logistics.

Matters Raised

DH:   What are the benefits for the village and why should we support the application?

BW:  The infrastructure will better service the farm. Lorries would be used rather than tractors and trailers to transport the grain. This would mean less mud on the roads and by storing on a pad, any run off would be caught .

2.

DH:   Would the vegetation used only come from Edlington?

BW:  Yes

Transport:

DB queried the direction the vehicles would be coming from, citing many instances experienced of HGVs travelling through the village despite the weight restriction imposed.

BW: Confirmed the direction would be from Thimbleby and acknowledged the problems of HGVs through the village caused by contractors.

DB : Would there be a lot of construction traffic? – No.

EB stated the main transport problem in the past was the contractors involved in potato distribution and whilst the HGV problem had quietened down recently, there was a real likelihood that this would increase again once the potato contractors were back in action. The problems in the past had involved the police on several occasions.

BW stated EB kept him informed of the issues and confirmed that Beeswax did speak to the contractors and tell them not to use that route.

EB suggested that a sign be provided by Beeswax stating ‘No access to Woodbeck Farm’.

EB queried how many tankers are used on the site at the moment?

BW: 150. Having the fertilizer on site meant that they could use it as and when required and emphasized the additional uses of electricity, running lorries tractors and trailers and described it as “good old fashioned farming with technology”.

DW asked if there would be any vehicles from Nocton as well as we are equidistant between there and Carrington. BW said there would not.

SS stressed that she felt the biggest concern was the increase in transport.

BW raised the question of the restriction on HGVs being for access only and queried if they accessed Woodbeck Farm due to following Sat Nav instructions were they actually breaking the law?

EB confirmed that they were.

BW stated that Beeswax were able to control their own wagons and DH stressed that as a village, we hope that they do control them.

3.

BW confirmed that the problem was being caused by contractors and RA stated that as Beeswax were contracting them it was within their power to stop the problem.

EB stressed that more HGVs were expected as soon as potato distribution recommences.

BW stated they were doing their best not to have contractors at all and the ultimate aim was to deliver their own product.

DH queried if the contractors were being told not to access the farm from the A158 and BW confirmed they were.

BB stated she had seen them coming from the opposite direction onto the 158 and asked if there is a sign on the yard telling drivers not to turn right through the village.

WG stated she had some sympathy for Beeswax with contractors as, when they had farmed here some time ago, they had encountered the same problem and put up a direction notice for drivers on the yard.

BW confirmed he would make sure it was still there.

KB felt that having the tankers accessing the proposed site from Thimbleby was an “accident waiting to happen” on an already historically dangerous junction at Deer House Corner.

………………………

Smell:

DB   queried the problem of smell.

BW   stated there would be “very little odor” and likened the smell when spread to that produced when land is fertilized from chicken waste.

……………………….

Carrington:

RA queried if the digestate was to be used for crops in the near vicinity.

BW: forage crops stored here would be taken to Carrington. The digestate is brought here to use as fertilizer.

RA queried if there was already a facility at Carringon why was there now a need to store on site?

BW: The desire to have less contractors.

4.

BB queried how this is to be transported from Carrington and it was confirmed this would be by tanker.

KB   expressed concern that we had been presented with a fait accompli and pointed out that Carrington was not a fair comparison to Edlington. Carrington was ‘off the beaten track’.

There was also the concern about the growing of maize which tends to attract rats.

BW stated it was not a fait accompli – the regulations allowed for the heaps to be placed directly onto the land without any planning application being required, but it was felt better to store it on a pad for the reasons already stated.

…………………………….

Wildlife:

PD  expressed concerns about attracting vermin and the possible adverse effects on wildlife and the natural balance.

BW stated that the grain will be stored at Carrington. Their practice is to place pads and lagoons on yards where there is already vermin control and he believes there will be no detriment to wildlife.

………………………

Visual impact:

With regard to visual impact BW stated that due to the proposed positioning behind the hedge lines, the only view will be from the bridleway.

It was agreed that the heaps by the road side last year were an eyesore.

……………………..

• DB queried the time of year of spreading and this was stated not during the period from Christmas until the end of March.

• DB queried if there were any other plans in the pipeline.

BW – No – as Edlington is more or less equidistant from Nocton and Carrington it is felt that once this was set up, they were ‘basically done’ and it can be operated as a satellite farm.

• CD queried if there would be an increase in flies as was presently the case with the compost pile next to his bungalow.

BW  No – that will not happen because it would be in liquid form.

• SS queried lining of the lagoon and this was confirmed, plus a cover
• BB Queried a cover also for the pad – this was also confirmed.

• KB queried if the reservoir was going to be drained as part of the process

BW No – that would still be needed for irrigation.

• AB queried if there would be less Compton/Cranbourne tractors and tankers going through Thimbleby as a result and BW confirmed this would be the case and one Beeswax lorry was equivalent to 4 of the tankers.

• EB queried if the planning had gone through to County yet (as it had been withdrawn from the District Council). BW confirmed it had and he did not know why District Council would not deal with it as they had dealt with identical applications for other Beeswax Dyson Limited farms.

• DB raised the subject of metal detectorists on the land and queried if there was a particular reason for this. BW stated Beeswax charge £10 per person and donate the charge to The Air Ambulance. Should anything of note be discovered, the proceeds of the find are split 50/50 between Beeswax and the finder. Beeswax donate their 50% to The Air Ambulance.

EB raised awareness that no one was meant to be metal detecting after 5pm and anyone seen doing so should be reported.

• DB queried if there was cctv on the yard. BW thought there was but was not sure if it was working.

BB suggested this could also be used for picking up the HGVs turning the wrong way out of the yard.

• LR had seen a grain wagon from Ludford on the track to Middle Yard and had spoken to the driver. She queried if there was any activity there and BW confirmed there was in respect to a storage shed and a disused pig building. Beeswax have no intention of farming pigs or chickens and the building may be demolished and the site used for a dwelling. He requested if anyone saw anything suspicious they let him know.
•  

6.

The Chairman thanked Mr Wills for coming to address the meeting and Mrs Birks for the use of the Church once again.

Next meeting – date to be determined. EB stated that the agenda would include election of a Chairman as his year of office was coming to an end. DH asked if he could be re-elected now and this took place on a show of hands.

EB gave a brief update on (superfast)Broadband – this was now alleged to be happening next spring.

After several attempts to get a speed restriction imposed through the village, this was looking unlikely as we did not meet the criteria.

SS queried if the ‘Slow’ markers were to be replaced on the road. EB to chase up, but there was still another sweeping of the road to be done following the latest resurfacing so it was unlikely the markers would be replaced until after that.

(An update since the meting been requested from Lincs Highways).

………………………