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.
Jamie Byrom, a local resident referring to no 5 on the plans list stated:
Question 1 – With reference to evidence I have provided to her in advance of this meeting, please would the Legal Officer confirm (with relevant explanation and supporting evidence) whether or not the application as made on 26 August 2022 was valid?
Question 2 – During the Inquiry site visit, the Inspector found the required visibility along the line now shown on S278 plans for the NE access to be unachievable. What evidence (if any) has been provided to the case officer to justify the LHA’s decision to accept the S278 plan that applies exactly the same visibility that she has proved not to work?
Question 3 – Will the officer confirm to the Planning Committee that the Local
Highway Authority responded to consultation in September and that among their comments they told him that “DCC could not give you [the applicant] permission to open a new access”?
Q4. The covering letter from the applicant’s agent supports variation on the grounds that inspectors wording of the relevant conditions is flawed. I’ve searched the officers report to this committee and I can’t find his view on that crucial claim whether its flawed or not. So, I ask just for clarity is it the officers professional opinion that in her appeal decision of April 2021 his majesty’s inspector wrote flawed conditions that were unreasonable, unnecessary or unlawful?
Q5. Please will the officer inform us precisely what changes in laws, regulations, policies, guidance, or even local circumstance unknown to the inspector in April 2021, now mean that her wording of the conditions must be varied?
Q6. Will the officer confirm that the wording that went out to publication in September retained the inspectors requirement that S278 plans must be approved by the local planning authority, but that this requirement has been very recently dropped from the wording that’s before the committee today, and that it never went out to public consultation?
Mr Elstone, a local resident asked:
AGENDA ITEM 10 – PLANNING COMMITTEE PROCEDURE
The proposed changes to the Planning Committee Procedure focus on Public Question time.
Why is it deemed a requirement to make Public Questions far more prescriptive and with increased editorial rights?
Changes it would seem to further stifle the Democratic Process and Public Engagement in MDDC.
RED LINHAY ANEAROBIC DIGESTER – REMOVAL OF NOISE CONDITION 13.
A Red Linhay Noise Survey dated March 2018 shows sound levels significantly exceeded Planning Condition requirements.
Rather than the applicant showing he has remedied the high noise level, he seeks not to have further noise assessments undertaken.
Why after over 4 years has this breach of planning condition 13 not to been enforced?
In early 2020 the MDDC Specialist Environmental Protection Officer raises concerns about the sound level produced by a conveyer dryer and mentions the requirement for a noise assessment against BS4142.
Conveyor driers can loud. Around 100dB under full load 97dB being equivalent to an industrial fire alarm.
Can it be confirmed if this as noise assessment was ever completed?
Despite the applicant further industrialising the Red Linhay site and including producing feed pellets it is believed for commercial sale. Requiring additional noise producing equipment installed without any planning apparent application.
Is this not more reason to enforce even enhance Condition 13 and not remove?
Using the applicant’s own data submission to MDDC the Red Linhay AD is producing and exporting over twice as much electricity as the planning condition allows. It has been doing this since 2019.
Therefore, more noise generating equipment is running 24/7.
Why has this planning condition not been enforced as it is a planning violation that has far reaching consequences for the local community and not just noise?
• GILBERT’S LODGE – MOREBATH.
Can the Planning Officer please confirm that my understanding of the Gilbert’s Lodge development timeline is correct?
· Started as a redundant stone built barn.
· Permission granted to convert barn to a fishing lodge on holiday let and with an agricultural holding type restriction.
· Permission granted in 2016 to occupy as part residential use and part holiday let for months of June thru August.
· Permission granted in 2020 applicant for full residential use but with restrictions on development
· Application to be decided that would permit demolition of the stone barn conversion and the erection of an ultra-modern house nearly 4 times as big and not on the existing location/footprint.