To receive any questions relating to items on the agenda from members of the public and replies thereto.
Note: A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.
Minutes:
Sarah Coffin, a local resident, referring to No 4 on the Plans list stated:
Red Linhay operated a 5000kw farm fed AD and a herd of 25 beef Charolais cattle with no declared intent for increased cattle numbers and no legitimate planning approval to increase AD energy production from this 100 acre farm. Therefore environmental benefit and necessity remain the key planning considerations.
Prior to this application both entities have been serviced by one permanent concrete silage clamp operating under EA permit within the AD site, as well as larger temporary soil based field silage help on the farm. Whilst environmental benefit appears self-evident from the application it would only be effective if it replaces the present temporary soil based silage clamp. Will Councillors condition any approval of this application accordingly?
Are Councillors aware of the ongoing investigations into numerous complaints and planning breaches concerning excess production with on farm Anaerobic Digesters across the region? I there ask Councillors to show due diligence and ensure any approval of this application will not facilitate further production excess.
Applicant claims Red Linhay is the hub site for outsourced feed stocks but these are limited and specified under the initial AD planning conditions. Any intentions to exceed present permitted outsourced feed stocks will require a Transfer Operators Licence – Does Red Linhay have such a licence?
There are serious local concerns that this application is merely a precursor to yet more back door expansion at this sensitive location. I quote the following adverts seen this year:
1. An advert on Freeads.com under same name as the Red Linhay Manager offering sales of bulk grass pellet deliveries
2. And another in January 2022 for new farm staff quoting ‘The company specialises in the growing and harvesting of a range of crops, not only for the on site AD unit but also our livestock feed pelleting enterprise
Paul Elstone, a local resident, also referring to No 4 on the plans list stated:
1. When making the recommendation for approval did the planning offier fully take into consideration that the silage clamp will contain enough silage to feed the registered Red Linhay heard of 17 Charolais cows and 23 claves born since 2020 for around 45 years assuming a 6 month indoor and outdoor feeding cycle?
2. If so how can this gross silage volume be fully justified other than it is being used for a different commercial purpose not related directly to this farm?
3. When stating that the silage clamp will cause no additional impact to the local road network did the planning officer fully take into consideration that the silage clamp will hold around 500 loads of grass silage delivered by tractor to fill?
4. When stating there will be no additional impacts on the local road network did the planning officer fully take into consideration that grass silage is being transported to Red Linhay to fill the clmap from as far as 23 miles away i.e. Clannaborough Barton at Bow or a round trip of 46 miles?
A farm that is currently up for sale at £7.5 million. This begs further questions I believe.
That 10 separate very large Red Linhay tractors and trailers were seen on the road at the same time, travelling from Bow passing through Copplestone, Crediton, Bickleigh and the Blundells School campus.
Halberton, Willand and Cullompton have also been seriously impacted.
5. Did the planning officer fully take into consideration that when he says there will be no impact on the local road network, the the Red Linhay AD transport statement forming part of the AD planning approval includes a map which very clearly shows the road though Blundells School campus with over 3000 pupil crossings per day will not be used.
That as many as 200 Red Linhay tractor movements a day have transited the Blundells School campus. Similar numbers have travelled through Halberton.
6. When stating there will be no increase in traffic movements as the movements have been accounted for.
Did the planning officer fully take into consideration that then the MDDC agreed the AD transport plan the applicant said there would only be 748 loads per year accessing Red Linhay.
That the Red Linhay weighbridge data shows that over the period August 2021 and August 2022 there were 3972 loads passing across the Red Linhay weighbridge?
This being 3231 extra loads or nearly 5 times as many as was stated by the applicant in order to get planning approval
Hannah Kearns, a local resident, provided the following questions referring to item 4 on the plans list which was read out by the Chairman:
QUESTION 1
I would refer Committee Members to Page 58, Item 5 - Highway Impacts The Briefing Paper says the following
“Crops will therefore be brought by tractor from other parts of the applicants farm enterprise. However this would not increase traffic movements on the local road network because these movements have already been counted for”
“The tractors that serve the farm enterprise are permanently based at Red Linhay therefore the traffic movements already exist”.
Can the Planning Officer explain EXACTLY what is meant by the statement that the traffic movements have already been accounted for?
Additionally, when giving this explanation, can the Planning Officer confirm how many tractors are operating from the Red Linhay site and importantly why these traffic movements already exist?
QUESTION 2
In respect of Question 1 are the Committee Members aware that the proposed silage clamp will require an ADDITIONAL 500 plus tractor trailer loads to fill, or around 1000 tractor movements?
These figures have been independently verified. Therefore, can the Planning Officer please explain how these extra 500 loads will not add any burden to the local road network?
QUESTION 3
Have MDDC Planning Officers fully investigated and verified ALL of the current RED LINHAY TRANSPORT DATA that is available to them on the MDDC Planning Portal as provided by the Red Linhay owners themselves when making the Highways Impact statement, or have they just taken this data at face value?
QUESTION 4
The Committee Report has stated that the grass silage is being obtained from Farming Enterprises owned by the applicant. Has this statement regarding land ownership been fully interrogated by the Planning Officer?
I ask this question given that information provided in terms of crop locations to feed the Anaerobic Digester would seem to be very different from where the grass silage to fill the clamp is actually known to be coming from.
QUESTION 5
Given the silage clamp is claimed to be required to feed the applicants cattle, has the Planning Officer done any detailed research into the size of heard or the type of cattle being fed?
The Chairman advised that responses to questions and statements raised would be provided when the application was heard.