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.

 

 

The following questions were received from members of the public:-

 

Andrew Moore (which the Chair read out) – Regarding Agenda Item 8

 

My thanks to the PDG for responding to the questions raised at the last meeting.  I am reassured that the Council continues the pragmatic investment strategy adopted by the S151 Officer and previous administration.

 

The Climate Change Committee is cited.  However, it is widely recognised as untrustworthy, except by those with blind adherence to climate alarmism.  It is populated by advocates of the 'green agenda' with vested interests in green businesses.  It determines government policy without democratic control.  It's lost touch with reality - actual floating offshore wind prices are 7 times the CCC's naïve figures.  The Met Office is also cited, yet it too has been discredited.  It's used unscientific methods to create a false narrative of temperature change.  80% of its measurement sites are Cat 4 and 5 with potential errors of up to 5 degrees.  It's fabricated temperature records where none exist.

 

You say, 'The scale and the pace of the problem can be overwhelming.'  That is categorically untrue, and the public are increasingly 'not buying it'.  There is increasing evidence that many of the cited calamity events are within normal tolerances.  Recent studies show that CO2 levels lag temperature - other forces are also at play.  Modelling often sensationalises with extreme scenarios, even assuming mankind really understands something as complex, large and non-linear as the climate.  The heart of my question was whether there is any real point in pursuing a 'Net Zero' strategy, let alone even increasing core budget as proposed.  It is a weak response to state that Plans and Strategy documents are in place, and that's that.  Serious questions are now being raised about the veracity of the CO2-driven climate change narrative.  For a PDG not to consider these is complacent.   I note that from the Update Report after 7 years of effort, the total reduction for MDDC is 361 tCO2, just 2%.  It's even gone up in the past 12 months and is now above the average for that same period.

 

Question 1

Can you please advise how much the Council has spent on its Climate Emergency initiative over 7 years (in direct and external funding including routine work and projects)?

Question 2

Given the questions around the climate change narrative, MDDC's negligible contribution, that expenditure is having little effect, and with a big forecast financial shortfall, wouldn't public money be better spent on community work / grants with an immediate and tangible benefit?

 

 

Question 3

Will this PDG amend planning guidance to prioritise food security, the natural environment, and the beauty of Mid-Devon over conflicting solar and wind development proposals?

Question 4

Will this PDG commission a study into the evidence counter to the standard climate change narrative better to inform its strategy for the future?

Sarah Coffin - Regarding Agenda Item 9

 

As stated in the officer’s report Farm-fed Anaerobic Digesters (those under Mid Devon control) can have either negative or beneficial impact, dependent on three fundamental operational principles:-

 

1.     Sustainable access to appropriate land to provide sufficient crop feedstock and provide safe spreading of manures and approx. 90% digestate residue, as a benefit fertiliser in accordance with WRAP/EA Rules and restrictions.  Otherwise they are classed as “waste” and require more costly disposal.

2.     Sufficient secure storage of odorous feedstocks and manures/digestate to reduce emissions to air and pollution of soil and water utilising the best available techniques.

3.     All industry and commerce has to be commercially viable to maintain its existence, however those that are supported by public money and purporting to be “green energy” are required to also prove they are “renewable and sustainable” in an environmentally  beneficial way.  I respect suggest there can be no integrity in such similar future projects, without serious assessment and full consideration of past failings as described in Motion 608.

Question1

Can I therefore request that whichever of the stated options Members choose it will include consideration of the following for all large/industrial livestock/energy projects:-

 

a)    Increased use of the already existing S106 or similar legal agreement, whereby approved applicants confirm acceptance and the capacity to comply with all approved planning material and mitigating conditions, as well at WRAP/EA Farming Best Practice Rules and restrictions.

b)    Identify and evidence showing all land versus seasonal or business let third party lands.  Particularly relevant given the 2025 legal precedent set via 3 court cases: NFU v Hertfordshire Council & Ors EWHC 536 (Admin); Methwold Borough Council West Norfolk Refusal of Industrial Factory Chicken and Pig farms (citing UK Supereme Cout ruling Finch v Surrey County Council) establishing the need for LPAs to fully account for both direct and indirect climate emissions; finally R (Caffyn) v Shropshire Council EWHC 1497 (Admin) Mr Caffyn’s successful claim that Council approval for £200k intensive poultry unit had failed to lawfully assess the full in-combination effects of manure and digestate spreading on third party lands.

c)     Full inclusion of all relevant historical Scrutiny Committee reports (2017/18) relating to Anaerobic Digester complaints.

 

Nick Govier - Regarding Agenda Item 9

 

As part of the Full Council meeting on 23July the decision from that meeting confirmed in the minutes was for the motion to be referred to this Committee before returning to Full Council.   The initial recommendations which this Committee is seeing this evening as part of those minutes.  It also stated, and I quote the questions received from the member of public would be considered at the Planning, Environment and Sustainability PDG. 

 

Question 1

Can this Committee please confirm that all attendees have seen those questions raised by the member of public?  Have they been circulated in advance and will they be considered as part of the recommendation contained in option 3 including how they will be incorporated in the scope of any further document.

Turning to the recommendation, I am not naïve to the challenges of funding and resource capacity, which have been outlined in the paper and also how any developed document can only provide guidance as opposed to defined policy.

 

Question 2

Can I ask this Committee to ensure that any such document developed incorporates the following:- How we develop subject matter expertise in the planning function for assessing future and existing AD applications to reflect the disproportionate share of AD plants located in Mid Devon.   This will negate the need for ongoing consultancy costs to review such cases.

 

Question 3

What knowledge and training investment can be recommended for a small cohort of planning officers?  This can be sourced locally in view of the highly respected expertise in Devon in AD plants all located within close proximity to this building.

 

Question 4

How can the applicant be mandated to support future AD applications by bringing greater transparency to the complete view of net zero impacts when submitting any future AD applications.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paul Elstone - Regarding Agenda Item 9

 

Motion 608 references a report prepared in France and which found that only 30% of AD’s tested were providing green and sustainable energy.  Of the AD’s currently in operation in Mid Devon only one is producing green and sustainable energy. It is an on farm AD producing just 80Kw per hour of electricity.  It’s primary feedstock being cow slurry. The 2 largest industrial sized ADs are producing around 1 mega watt per hour of electricity. This being 100% over planning consent and with maize as the primary feedstock. They are growing energy crops to produce electricity to the grid using combined heat and power units running at around 38% efficiency.

 

Question 1

Will this Committee recognise that these are the very worst types of AD’s and which the French report identifies as not green and therefore not sustainable.

AD’s that require very particular consideration in any planning policy etc?  This Council is very proud of its green and sustainability credentials.  Be it recycling rates, net zero social homes, leisure centre energy consumption reduction, solar panel installations.

 

Question 2

Does this Committee fully appreciate  that in a strike of a pen and in approving certain types of anaerobic digester installations and even worse the increase in power generation and resultant feedstock requirements for existing and industrial sized AD plants that all the MDDC CO2 emission savings will be negated and perhaps a hundred times over?

 

Therefore I would suggest that this Committee needs to access the best of technical expertise it can when deciding on the best way forward in support of its green agenda.  Expertise which is available in the public realm.

Expertise with relevant Doctorates and Masters Degrees.  Expertise that would come free of charge.  Expertise that will relieve a time burden on officers and save MDDC cost.

 

Question 3

Will this Committee please fully develop this option? 

 

The current planning approvals concerning anaerobic digesters are highly reliant on planning condition compliance.  History over the last 8 plus years has shown that planning conditions are being totally ignored and without any meaningful enforcement. A list of condition breaches and based fully on evidence follows.

 

1.  AD’ exporting over twice as much electricity as the planning conditions allow. Over 1000kw per hour as opposed to 500.  Even reporting different production to MDDC and OFGEM.  If this condition alone was enforced much of the abuse would be controlled.

2. Feedstock and digestate tonnages far greater than consent.

3. Feedstock supplied from and digestate spread in locations not approved.

4. Failure to comply with agreed traffic routes.

5. Failure to provide correct weigh bridge data.

 

There are 12 separate planning condition breaches but time prevents me from completing.

 

Question 4

Will this Committee recognise that it now has the opportunity to put much of these abuses to rights? 

 

 

The Chair stated that as the questions had not been received in advance, written responses would be provided within 10 working days and attached to the minutes.