Agenda item

To receive any questions from members of the public and replies thereto.

 

Note:   A maximum of 30 minutes is allowed for this item.

Paul Elstone:

 

Question 1 

The report says there are 10 Anaerobic Digesters in Mid Devon. Accessing data from various sources not least Mid Devon District Council’s own planning portal reveals there are just 6 of which only 4 are operational.

 

These are:

Menchine – Nomandsland

Red Linhay – Halberton,

Mount Stephen – Uffculme 

Buttermoor - Loxbeare.  

 

Non operational AD’s are:

Willand,

Edgeworthy - Nomansland

 

Will the report be modified accordingly? 

 

Question 2 

Of those 6 AD’s 3 can be considered as industrial in size

Menchine, Red Linhay, and Willand.  Will the report recognise this? 

 

Question 3 

The report says the 10 AD’s have an installed generating capacity of 5.3 megawatts.  Data shows that the installed capacity is far less being 2.95 megawatts.

 

Will the report be modified accordingly?

 

Question 4  

Importantly and I emphasise, the total planning consent  generating capacity of the operating AD’s in Mid Devon is  1.25 megawatts.

 

OFGEM Data reveals that both Menchine and Red Linhay have been grossly non-compliant with planning conditions going back to 2017 and 2019 respectively.  Information that has repeatedly been made available to this Council but which it has failed to enforce.

 

As a result towns and villages right across Mid Devon have been blighted by high numbers even convoys of very large agricultural tractors.

 

Will the report recognise this? 

 

Question 5 

The report very disappointingly says that it is unable to provide details on AD feedstock land usage, or is there any attempt is made to do so.   Especially disappointing this given it was the remit for the report in the first place.

 

Data available shows and again taken from the MDDC Planning Portal shows the land usage is of the order of 1350 acres.

 

To validate this statement the Red Linhay AD planning condition says that the AD can use a land area of 288 hectares or 714 acres to provide its 8,925 tonnes of arable and grass feedstock or an average yield of 31 tonnes per hectare. 

 

Will the report now recognise this?

 

Question 6 

What is the total land area of the solar farms once again information available on the planning site?

 

As an example, the planning information shows that Langford Solar Farm covers 60.78 hectares or 150 acres and generates up to 49.9 megawatts. 

 

Question 7

How many solar farms are there in Mid Devon and where are they, information that should be readily available on examining planning applications? 

 

Question 8.

What is the total design electrical output from the solar farms again information available on the planning site?

 

Question 9

Is there not merit in this Council preparing its own spread sheet for easy reference rather than being reliant on third parties to provide the information and which is not necessarily complete or correct?

 

Question 10 

Does this Council have a map showing the locations and land area of solar farms this like Devon CPRE? 

 

Question 11

Where is the biomass plant located? 

 

Question 12 

What is its feedstock and what amount? 

 

The Chairman explained that as some of the questions had not been provided in writing in advance of the meeting that written responses would be provided within ten working days.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Barry Warren:

 

In section 1 is a paragraph in italics which sets out what was asked for by Scrutiny Committee.

The report does not answer the questions posed by committee but refers to Government figures which may well be out of date. It makes great reference to a 2018 report, 6 years out of date and prepared for a project that is no longer relevant.

 

Question 1.    Where in the report does it deal with the question as to the quantity of sites that are up to date for Mid Devon?

 

Question 2.    Where in the report does it deal with the question as to how much land was devoted to renewable energies?

 

Paragraph 2.1 advises ‘currently only occupy a small amount of land and significant potential exists for further development of new installations’.

 

Question 3.    How can such a statement be creditable when Committee cannot be advised of up to date information as to how many particular sites there are, their locations and areas of land used?

 

Not only is this information not available in the report as requested but the answers to questions in an earlier meeting also support the fact that MDDC do not know what is going on. Please see minutes of 23 January 2024 meeting of Planning, Environment & Sustainability PDG minute 47 where no detailed information was given in response to questions.

 

The current report lacks the information requested and if the Scrutiny Committee are giving attention to renewable energy and the impact on land and the amount of land used then the following questions may also assist.

 

Question 4.    Why is there no reference to the use of BESS [Battery Energy Storage Systems] or SMR’s [Small Modular Reactors]?

 

Virtually all planning applications for solar sites include the area of land to be used and the expected output.  These details are in the application, approved plans and, where appropriate, conditions. 

 

Question 5.    Why has this information not been collated to give more information and relevance to the questions asked?

 

Virtually all planning applications for AD Plants include the areas of land to be used for the provision of feedstock and the expected output are given.  Invariably locations and areas for the spreading of digestate are also approved. These details are in the approved plans and where appropriate conditions.

 

Question 6.    Why has this information not been collated to give more information and relevance to the questions asked?

 

In Section 1 of the report the recommendation is that ‘Members note the report.’

 

Question 7.    How can Scrutiny Committee discharge its function by noting a report that does not answer the questions asked?       

 

The Chairman explained that as the questions had not been provided in writing in advance of the meeting that written responses would be provided within ten working days.