Agenda item

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.

Gerald Conyngham referred to Application 23/00924/FULL

On the 22nd of September 2022 88% of voters voted in favour of the Crediton Neighbourhood Plan at a referendum which means it carries full weight for guiding planning applications submitted to the council and forms part of the statutory development plan for the Crediton area.

The plan has a key objective on sustainability 'To reduce environmental degradaon and mitigate the effects of climate change'.  McDonalds promotes the consumption of beef which is responsible for 14% of carbon emissions. Also despite what McDonalds say, independent research shows that some beef supplied to them comes from illegally cleared Amazon rain forests, so they are colluding in rainforest clearance.  Another objective is 'to improve the quality and quantity of sustainable transport'. By making it a drive in facility McDonalds will be encouraging the use of cars thus increasing carbon emissions in the area. On Design, the NP says:  'New developments should be locally distinctive'.  In  no way will this happen since McDonalds have a standard approach with the use of the Big M to all new developments.  Another objective is' to buy food that is grown locally'   . McDonalds source their food centrally.

Given all these ways in which this application goes against the statutory development plan for Crediton, will the committee please reject it?

Giles Fawsett referred to Application 23/00924/FULL

McDonalds, with two drive throughs and located right on the very edge of our town, would be an environmental disaster. Firstly, our government, secondly our county council, thirdly our district council and fourthly our town council have all declared a climate emergency.

These food outlets ought to be in the centre of town where people can and should walk.

Allow me to quote you from your Crediton Masterplan that your council has just completed. Page 23 “In recent years Government policy has strengthened its position on the importance of walking and cycling in positively addressing health and wellbeing, congestion, air quality and climate change.”

So how is this drive though McDonalds compatible with this government policy?

Secondly, what does our Devon County Council say? Its draft vision was issued in August 2023. Again it’s about reducing the need to travel, enhancing and protecting our health and wellbeing and “Promoting the ’20-minute neighbourhood’”

So how is this drive though McDonalds compatible with this county council policy?

So thirdly Mid Devon District Council. Your first masterplan objective, yes top of the list. Page 34 “1. Support redevelopment that maximises economic benefit within the town centre.” So why will you allow a Drive though McDonalds that isn’t in the town centre?

The Crediton Masterplan page 39 refers to “the need to tackle the climate crisis by changing the ways in which we travel.” Top of the transport hierarchy is walking.

So why are you allowing a drive though McDonald’s that is going to be driven to?

In addition, Mid Devon District Council Air Quality Action Plan concluded “that there were unacceptable levels of air pollution in parts of Crediton town centre and designated it as an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA), in which a reduction in NOx emissions is required to meet national standards”.

So how can this committee justify this McDonalds knowing that almost everyone will be driving up and down Exeter Road right pass its air pollution monitor?

Fourthly, Crediton Town Council has objected to the proposal. Say no more!

McDonalds, like mainstream politicians, advocate economic growth. This model is noisy, polluting and wasteful. Its commercial priorities have forced people to gear everything to jobseeking and career development, but still leave many people facing chronically unfulfilling and precarious jobs and lives.

Finally, do you recognise the hypocrisy in allowing McDonald’s given these policies in your Masterplan for Crediton?

David Harris referred to Application 23/00924/FULL

We are already dealing with the consequences of not taking appropriate action to mitigate the continuing impacts of greenhouse gas emissions on our home. From wildfires to flooding, sea level rise to droughts, heatwaves to more frequent and intense storms, we have experienced it all in this country and within this region. The impacts are not only at the time of the weather-related event but also in subsequent months and years, making it harder for our farmers to produce our food and make a sustainable living.

When we think of greenhouse gas emissions, we tend to focus on CO2 which mostly comes from the continued burning of fossil fuels. However, what is often forgotten or overlooked is the impact of methane of which a large proportion is emitted by ruminants, sheep and particularly cattle. Methane has a much greater impact on the heating of our climate than CO2, 30 times as much to be precise. There is another fact about methane that is often not considered and that is its much shorter lifespan, 10 years or so as compared to CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for hundreds of years.

So, methane, mostly emitted by cattle, poses a much greater threat to the overheating of our climate but also provides a great opportunity to reduce greenhouse gases in a much shorter period of time than CO2. And to reduce the global heating driven by methane all we need to do is to reduce the number of cattle we farm, rather than relying on unproven technology, as is the case with CO2.

Now, it shouldn’t fall on ourselves to be having to do this, we have national leadership that should have been moving this forward at the required pace. However, they have not. And so it has fallen upon us within this room to make the necessary decisions. The question for you to answer in the years to come is what do I want to say to my children, grandchildren or someone else’s children? Is it I was only doing my job or perhaps they might not even ask you because they know that you were brave enough to do everything you could.

Caroline Romijn referred to Application 23/00924/FULL

I note that the recommendation in the agenda is that permission be granted for this application. This is very disappointing in the light of Mid-Devon’s supposed commitment to climate action, and I hope the committee may still decide to refuse permission.  

It is clear that a McDonalds drive through would be detrimental to Crediton, as other objectors make clear, with significant negative impacts on the environment and the town’s carbon footprint, on efforts to promote active travel,  as well as on people’s health, and on local food businesses and food producers. 

If, in spite of this, the committee is minded to approve the restaurant, we need you, please, to apply the strictest conditions and limitations possible: 

Could you approve the ‘static’ restaurant but refuse or restrict the drive-thru element? Refuse it outright or limit it to specific times and days? 

Could you apply conditions limiting the hours and the brightness of their illuminated signs, which will otherwise add significant extra light pollution, affecting both human well-being and biodiversity?

Could you apply strict conditions to the packaging that will be used? Requiring it to be non-plastic and easily recyclable? Could you stipulate that MacDonalds take full responsibility for litter-picking and recycling? 

Tiffany Gaston referred to Application 23/00924/FULL

I am a teacher at Queen Elizabeth's School in Crediton and our school community will be greatly affected by the proposed McDonald's. I would be grateful if you could take the following information into account at your planning meeting on Jan 10^th. Unfortunately, I cannot be there in person as I will be teaching. 

On Monday 13^th November QE students debated whether a Drive Through McDonald's restaurant would be good for the people of Crediton. The event was well attended by both students and members of the local community. Both sides argued their case expertly. Arguments put forward to support the motion included the need for more jobs and a greater choice of affordable food outlets in Crediton as well as the idea that the restaurant would provide a safer place for young people to meet in the evening.  However, views against the development highlighted the impact of fast food on the environment and the potential job losses if local businesses were forced to close due to lack of business. The likelihood of increased litter in the area and the link between fast food and obesity were also given as compelling arguments. The issue of light pollution was also a concern. The judging panel, comprising of the mayor of Crediton, a local GP and a local shopkeeper, adjudged the debate a tie. However, when put to a vote the audience voted overwhelmingly against the motion that Mcdonalds would be good for Crediton. 

Given that the debate showed that people, especially young people, (who many may assume would be in favour of the development) do not think that McDonald's would be good for the people of Crediton, how can MDDC decide to approve the application?

Alan Murray referred to Application 23/00924/FULL

Can the planning officer confirm what measures are part of this planning application to prevent pollution from surface waters from buildings, traffic and car parking, and from construction activities, reaching the River Yeo potentially affecting flora and fauna and in particular the endangered native White-clawed Crayfish? The River Yeo adjacent to the site is one of only two locations in Devon where they still survive.

With consideration to the site being located on a flood plain and the increasing likelihood of flooding events due to climate change, the current measures proposed do not appear adequate to prevent polluting run-off entering the Yeo as they rely on poorly designed rain gardens and infiltration from swales on wet grassland.

David Horton referred to Application 23/00924/FULL

At present the A377 roundabout services a vehicle every five seconds at traditional mealtimes. The impact of the additional vehicle demand from a McDonalds drive through restaurant would be expediential to this number.

Unlike the current businesses which have capacity for their visitors, the high-density design of the McDonald’s site would mean that any delay would quickly feed back to the arterial road, preventing all vehicle movements, and cause blockages on the A377.   The recommendation of approval currently feels like a gamble as opposed to a fact based decision.

Why has the application not been designed to access directly off the roundabout, giving clear accountability in the future for authorities to police these inevitable disruptions to the highway?