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:
Mr Pilgrim referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Red Linhay) stated that the officer’s report seems to accept that the applicant's information is correct, I ask you to consider whether the officers recommendation is motivated to shift the focus of challenge. The application depends on an Environment Agency permit, if the Environment Agency refuse the permit and the scheme is operated without a permit the applicant would be in breach of the Environment Agency. If you refuse permission it is likely that an appeal will lead to costs, the credibility and diligence of the officer will be judged.
Mrs Punnett referring to Item 4 on the Plans list (Edgeworthy Farm) stated that the Lake's had been farming Edgeworthy for many generations. Agriculture has continued to change and farmers have had to adapt with the demands for food and animal welfare law. Edgeworthy have been milking dairy cows for many years but with TB and falling milk prices there is a need to diversify. The plan is to produce quality free range chicken and this will form a vital part of Edgeworthy continuing through the generations.
Mr Williams again referring to Item 4 on the Plans List (Edgeworthy Farm) stated that he wanted to know if the Committee were aware that the application will help local communities and local business with employment as an increase in the number of poultry will mean an extra stockman and help local people with work building the poultry houses, there will be a need for electricians and other professions, 4 or 5 other people will also be employed for the clean out period.
Mr Baxter referring to Item 3 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) asked if the Committee were aware that in addition to the 5 further poultry units, the applicant had also applied for a pellet factory, which will have further traffic implications. An appeal would take place on 26 January and the inspector would consider traffic movement. High traffic will lead to harm to resident living conditions
Mr Lenton referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Red Linhay) asked a question in 2 parts.
1 - the application before this committee is for an increased throughput of feedstocks and waste consumption– an increase of about 500 tonnes a year over the approved application. The officers own report makes clear that the size of the site has increased by 0.3 hectare, size of silage clamps increased volume by 17%, and digester tank by approx 15% from approved application. Given that the report makes clear that the principle of an AD can no longer be challenged, my question is how can it be that these increases do not result in anymore traffic movements and secondly given that these are additional and, in the view of the objectors, detrimental issues why is it that the officers report makes no attempt to address these issues other than to say that they are outweighed by the benefits and
2 – on the 4 December 2013 there was a planning meeting chaired by present chairman to consider an application at Edgeworthy Farm. During the course of that meeting, you Madam chairman declared a personal interest as the applicant was well known to you and chose to leave the room and took no part in the discussion or voting which is recorded in the minutes. What I would like to know, given that this application wrongly names the applicant as Mr Manley and the applicant is not Mr Manley but is in fact Greener for Life, the applicant at Edgeworthy was Greener for Life energy Ltd, same applicant, well known to your chairman, I would simply ask that for continuity and independence whether it is the chairman’s intention to step down for the same reasons and take no part in the discussion.
The Chairman stated that she did have a personal interest in that she knew Mr Lake, Mr Reed and the Coles, she did not have an interest in the Red Linhay application as she did not know Mr Manley, she did not have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI) and therefore did not have to leave the meeting. She would declare a personal interest in Menchine and Edgeworthy and remain in the Chair. Sometimes if Members have a personal interest they may decide to leave the meeting but this would not be the case in this instance.
Mr White referring to Item 1 in the Plans List asked that when the officer recommended approval did he not consider that the harm to the environment and the Grand Western Canal was significant enough to balance a refusal. The site is larger and closer to the canal, there are no additional benefits. Condition 8 refers to no storage of chicken or farmyard manures within the application site except in the sealed digestate storage tanks, where will the raw feedstock be stored, could this be clarified.
Mr Robbins referring again to Red Linhay stated that he was the closest resident to the site, that the application would set a precedent if approved; people will ignore permissions and build larger constructions.
Mr Nicholls referring to Item 2 on the Plans List (Fordton) asked the Committee to consider the residents of Fordton when determining the application. Given the present concerns about flooding of the Rivers Yeo and Creedy in the Crediton area, is the Committee absolutely convinced that existing and future planning applications concerning flood plains of these rivers fully taken into account and factor in ‘trickle through’ of water in flood plains but outside he river itself and, separately, the importance of tourism to Crediton. Can the Committee offer guarantees that their decisions will not adversely affect the safety, the health and prosperity of the residents of Crediton. You have the consultant’s report on the flooding issue; so they consider the increased frequency of extreme rainfall? Since 1978 the road through Fordton has been impassable due to flooding on at least three occasions, this was not reported by your consultants. The effect of the development on flood water levels in the immediate area close to the proposed development including the railway is to be considered. The assessment of flood risk is in our opinion both flawed and out of date. There has been a failure to consider the implications for the railway station, its appropriateness in the surrounding area and impact upon tourist attractions.
Mr White (representing the Friends of the Grand Western Canal) and referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Red Linhay) asked if there was a current Protected Species and Hedgerow assessment with the application?
Mr Gibson referring to Item 3 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) stated that he ran a campsite 670 metres from the Menchine Farm chicken houses. Established in 1933,he ran a working farm alongside the campsite, we have managed smells and we do not touch our chicken houses through the summer period so as to keep the smells away from our visitors. The environmental report states that we will get some smell from the application, given the summer breeze, the smell from the application site will be catastrophic to our business especially at clean out. People did last year complain about the traffic noise. There previously was a need for free range chicken, this is no longer the case, how does this affect planning policy as producers are being told that there is no longer a need for the amount of chicken.
Mr Welchman referring to item 1 on the Plans List (Red Linhay) stated that he would like to publicise that he wanted to build a monstrosity in a sensitive location in the countryside, so I will put in a softer application, I get permission and then I build what I wanted all along and put in a revised plan, what message is that if this is approved today.
Mr Corden referring to Item 1 on the Plans List stated that I hope Members will consider that Greener for Life are not new to this, they know what is needed for a 500kw digester. They now require the whole thing to be larger to get the same amount of electricity, why did they not know they wanted more, it makes a mockery of the proposed plans in the original application. Traffic movements will be changed as farming has changed. You have approved a 2nd cattle building, the amount of traffic movements are increased as to what was originally considered. All these changes for no change in output, has output increased? The officer has confirmed it is all larger, it will require many more traffic movements, please consider the people of Halberton.
The Chairman stated that answers to the questions would be given when the applications were considered.