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:
The following questions were asked in relation to Item 2 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm, Nomansland):
Mr Barry Cornes asked the Committee whether it was aware that the applicant had claimed that he had started a process to seek end of waste certification to make use of the digestate as animal bedding and biomass fuel. The Agriculture and Horticultural Development Board and Dairy Co stated on 31.3.2015 that the use of AD digestate solids or dried digestate solids as bedding was not currently permissible in the UK. Also in the opinion of the European Biogas Association drying solid digestate to process into pellets to burn as biofuel contradicts all claims for sustainability and it is best used as a soil conditioner.
Mrs Virginia Cornes went on to ask, now that the Menchine plant was up and running were Members aware that since it started the residents of Nomansland had suffered an explosion of enormous agricultural vehicles in and around the hamlet often from early morning until last thing at night. If this application was approved the addition of lorry and drag trailers with 20 ton loads could only further increase the cumulative impact of the already unacceptable noise and general disturbance caused to the residents.
Mrs Alison Webb stated that Members would be aware that an appeal decision was still awaited from the Planning Inspectorate to double the power output of the existing AD plant from 500kw to 1mw. Could Members truly accept the officer recommendation to approve this application when the Planning Inspectorate Case Officer had already voiced his opinion that he had insufficient Written Representation? He had now made the decision to hold an Informal Hearing to address his concerns including non-compliance with conditions. This application ought to be deferred until the outcome of the Appeal was known.
Mr Richard Grant stated that he was a newly elected councillor for Thelbridge Parish Council. At his first meeting the application relating to this additional building at Menchine Farm was on the agenda and was briefly discussed. However despite him noting that it is stated that Thelbridge had submitted a statement saying they had no objection, he felt compelled to advise the Committee that in fact no vote was taken to this effect.
Mrs Sally Smyth, Chairman of Cruwys Morchard Parish Council, stated that she would like to make Members aware that she had asked to speak on the Parish’s behalf but had been declined as the Chair of Templeton Parish had already requested to speak. However, Miss Coffin from Templeton had offered to withdraw her request as it was Nomansland residents who were primarily concerned with this application, half of whom lived in Cruwys Morchard and not Thelbridge.
Despite this they had both been refused permission to address Members except during question time. However, she felt that a precedent had already been set at previous planning hearings when contiguous parishes were allowed to speak at the agenda item. She wanted therefore to draw the Committee’s attention to two key issues, visual impact and transport, raised at the Cruwys Morchard Parish Council meeting regarding this application.
In allowing an appeal in respect of application 12/01659/MFUL Planning Inspector Mike Robins described the site as an uncharacteristically large development of poultry houses and AD plant which did cause some harm to the landscape character. Despite this, the development sprawl by stealth at Menchine farm has continued to be approved contributing to cumulative landscape harm. Are Members aware that the applicant had recently submitted a screening application for a further 5 poultry houses each 86 metres by 12 metres to accommodate 60,000 birds immediately west of this proposed building?
She went on to state that the Planning Officer could confirm that the applicant failed to produce the information required under Condition 8 of the currently approved scheme in relation to traffic movements. This application would, if approved, generate a minimum of 200 additional traffic movements. Surely, compliance with conditions relies on a mutually respectful working relationship between the Local Planning Authority and the applicant. As he had failed to provide these figures and it had been a significant reason for non-determination, then why with the additional traffic movements would the officers see fit to recommend it? If the Committee cannot refuse this application surely it ought to be deferred until the Appeal outcome was known?
Mrs Sarah Coffin, Templeton Parish Councillor, stated that if the Committee granted this application enabling the doubling of at present between 5 – 20% solid digestate production, where will the doubled proportional 80% liquid digestate be put which is not viable to dry? The applicant had named lands of approximately 500 acres which were occupied by his ‘Greener for Life’ Co-Director, a company now in administration, as a receptor for the unpasteurised potentially contaminated liquid digestate fertiliser. With no other end market approved the potential of significant loss of safe land access and the reluctance of other local land owners to purchase the digestate, the applicant fails to identify a safe secure end destination that complies with all DEFRA and Environment Agency best practice as well as the 6 kilometre radius in the Local Planning Authority condition. Therefore in view of the failure to fully comply with the planning appeal conditions already mentioned as well as the two water pollution incidents at present under investigation with the Environment Agency involving the applicant and the ‘Greener for Life’ Co-Director, I ask the Committee to act responsibly and refuse this application.
In responding to the suggestion that Members were being mislead by the officer report the Area Planning Officer dealing with this application referred the Committee to page 25 of the report and the second paragraph under policy number DM22 where it stated that ‘The proposed building seeks to maximise the recycling opportunities arsing rom the operation of the AD plant. The building enables the applicant to form fertiliser and/or animal bedding in a pelleted form using the dried digestate that arises from the AD plant. Both processes require a permit from the Environment Agency.’ Therefore he suggested that officers had not been misleading.
In relation to the other questions that had been raised he stated that most of them related to the AD plant and the Committee were advised that they should not be considering this application in association with the outstanding AD issues. Regarding the comment from Mr Grant, he stated that he could not comment about the Thelbridge Parish Council meeting as he had not been present, all he could do was show him the response from the Council which said that they did not have any objections.