To consider the planning applications contained in the list.
Minutes:
The Committee considered the applications in the plans list *.
Note: *List previously circulated; copy attached to the signed Minutes.
(a) No 1 on the Plans List (15/01034/MFUL - Erection of a 500kW anaerobic digester and associated works with 2 silage clamps. Revised scheme to include the change of orientation of the layout and installation of 2 driers – land at NGR 299621 112764 (Red Linhay) Crown Hill, Halberton).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report explaining that the principle of the scheme had been approved by the Planning Committee, the amendments to the scheme were before Members today. Land feedstock sources had previously been identified and there was a condition restricting changes to these. Members viewed the proposed elevations of the amended plans, the position of the silage clamps, the extension to the planting scheme and photographs from various aspects of the site including a plan which identified the differences in the schemes and clarified that all the waste would be stored in sealed tanks.
He addressed the issues raised in public question time:
Noise and odour issues would be addressed through the Environment Agency permit
Rainwater would be channelled into the soakaway and effluent would go to the buffer tank.
The impact on the canal - people did use the area as a recreational site, there were glimpses from the canal, the dome could be seen in context with other buildings, and there were no protected species or flora identified in the assessment.
With regard to the habitat survey, dormice had been considered, traps had been laid but none had been found, no further surveys had taken place.
With regard to a possible challenge, the recommendation had been made purely in terms of policy.
Mr Lenton spoke of increases in size for various parts of the site, in fact many of the issues he raised had been reduced and there would be no increase in traffic generation. With regard to storage facilities, these would be sealed containers and the digestate would be spread on the land.
With regard to setting a precedent, the Head of Planning and Regeneration stated that undertaking works not in accordance with approved plans was not acceptable or to be condoned, however planning guidance stated that it was possible to seek to regularise unauthorised works in this way and that the application must be considered in the normal way.
With regard to the intentions of the applicant, a revised scheme had been submitted that had to be dealt with on its merits.
Consideration was given to:-
· Policy DM 22 – agricultural development
· An archaeological survey
· Whether there was room for an additional CHP unit – it was noted that this was not part of the application before Members.
· Landscaping issues
· Monitoring of conditions if approved
· Whether the plant would work continuously
· The transport assessment
· The use of the gas flare
· The environmental permit
· Having been given so many assurances when the initial application was originally discussed, how could the original design be built so incorrectly
· The fact that it was legitimate to seek to regularise the application.
· The specific changes that had been made from the original application which included the bund and the additional screening
· Scant regard of the Local Planning Authority and the lack of intention to follow the original plans and whether if the revised application had been the original application, whether it would have been approved
· Impact of the revised scheme upon the canal conservation area
· Whether the transport plan was out of date
RESOLVED that Members were minded to refuse the application and therefore wished to defer the decision to allow for a report to be received setting out:
a)the implications of the proposed reasons for refusal based on concerns regarding landscape and visual impact, the impact on the character and appearance on the Grand Western Canal conservation area, the impact on residential amenity and whether the transport plan was up to date, accurate and could be relied upon.
b)Potential enforcement action.
(Proposed by Cllr R F Radford and seconded by Cllr P J Heal)
Notes:
(i) Cllr K I Busch declared a personal interest as the applicant was known to him;
(ii) Cllrs R F Radford and R L Stanley declared personal interests as some of the objectors were known to them;
(iii) Cllrs R J Dolley and D J Knowles declared personal interests as the applicant and the objectors were known to them;
(iv) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C Collis and R F Radford made declarations in accordance with the Protocol of Good Practice in dealing with planning matters as they were Members of the Grand Western Canal Joint Advisory Committee;
(v) Mr Manley (Agent) spoke;
(vi) Mrs Vinton spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(vii) The Chairman read a statement from Halberton Parish Council;
(viii) Cllr R F Radford spoke as Ward Member;
(ix) Ian Winter (Environmental Health Officer) and Ian Sorenson (Devon County Council, Highways Authority) spoke;
(x) Cllrs Mrs H Bainbridge, Mrs C Collis and Mrs F J Colthorpe requested that there vote against the decision be recorded;
(xi) Cllrs K I Busch, D J Knowles and F W Letch requested that their abstention from voting be recorded;
(xii) A proposal to approve the application was not supported;
The following late information was reported: the Material Considerations and Observations should read
1. Policy
2. Access and Transport
3. Landscape and visual impacts
4. Impact on neighbouring residents
5. Drainage
6. Impact upon the Grand Western Canal Conservation Area
7. Other Impacts
8. Benefits
9. Planning Balance
· There is an error on page 26 of the agenda under summary of changes point no 3. The capacity of the silage clamps should be 7844 and 7200 cubic metres rather than 3381 and 3926 as stated. This is a decrease in capacity of 644 cubic metres.
· On page 38 the Highway Authority comments of 26th November states that there is a silage clamp size increase of 2%. This is incorrect. It is a reduction of 8.9%. This has been conveyed to DCC highways
· Figure change for the Appendix 1 on page 126 of the report re feedstock the figure is incorrect for the new unit it should read 13925 not 14231 Tonnes. This is the same as the previous application.
· Revision to condition 3 page 56: Details of the colour and finish of the building materials to be used (Including the digester dome) and to be submitted to and approved in wring by the Local Planning Authority within 1 month of the date of this approval. The development shall be carried out in accordance with these details and so retained.
· Revision to the end of condition 6 page 56: …and approved in writing by the Local Planning Authority.
Cllrs R J Dolley and R F Radford left the meeting at this point
(b) No 2 on the Plans List (15/01548/MFUL - Erection of industrial units (Use Classes B1 & B2) and formation of access and parking – land at NGR 283829 99476 (Former Railway Land) Crediton).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the location of the site, the proposed layout, existing access, proposed elevations and floor plans, the drainage details that had been approved under reserved matters for 1 industrial unit and Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site which identified the location and the works that had been undertaken as part of the previous application.
Consideration was given to:
· Drainage and possible flooding issues
· The narrowness of the access
· The concerns of local residents with regard to visual impact on the historic railway and the rural hinterland
· The possibility of using other areas for employment use
· Increase parking issues because of the development
· The noise from the railway already witnessed by local residents
· The need for small industrial units in the area
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with an additional condition 13 stating that: No development approved by this permission shall commence until such time that the proposer has submitted to, and the local planning authority approved in writing, details of site and floor levels.
REASON 13: For the purpose of managing flood risk, and in accordance with policy COR11.
(Proposed by Cllr J D Squire and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Cllr J M Downes declared that he had pre-determined the application and therefore could not take part in any discussions and left the meeting during the discussion thereon;
(ii) Cllrs F W Letch and N A Way declared personal interests as they had spoken to residents regarding the application and as Members of the Town Council
(iii) Mr Agasee spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(iv) Cllr Mrs Brookes-Hocking (Crediton Town Council) spoke;
(v) Cllr N A Way spoke as Ward Member;
(vi) Cllrs K I Busch and F W Letch requested that their votes against the decision be recorded;
(vii) Cllr R L Stanley requested that his abstention from voting be recorded;
(viii) The following late information was reported Page 69: A further letter of objection has been, raising in particular flood issues.
Officer response: This matter is covered by the report (see also comments below)
Page 69: The Inspector’s appeal decision granting outline planning permission under 08/00307/MOUT has been circulated and is referred to as Appendix A in the report.
Page 73: Condition 6. An amended block layout plan has been received which includes the approved surface water drainage arrangements as approved under LPA ref: 13/00755/ARM and referred to at condition 6 as being required as part of the proposals as submitted.
Page 51: Add condition 13 and reason as follows. Although noted in the main body of the report on page 41, it was not included in the recommendation section
Condition 13: No development approved by this permission shall commence until such time that the proposer has submitted to, and the local planning authority approved in writing, details of site and floor levels.
REASON 13: For the purpose of managing flood risk, and in accordance with policy COR11.
(c) No 3 on the Plans List (15/01571/MFUL - Erection of 5 additional poultry units (5040 sq.m) and biomass boiler unit; formation of attenuation pond, access track, and hardstanding; landscaping; and associated infrastructure – land at NGR 283175 113696 (Menchine Farm) Nomansland).
The Area Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan and the areas visited the previous day by the Committee. He outlined an indicative landscape scheme and the proposed sections through the site, proposed elevations of the sheds and the biomass plant room and
Members viewed photographs from various aspects of the site.
He addressed the issues raised at public question time, noting the economic benefits of the scheme. With regard to Mr Baxter’s comments, he stated that any decision made would not prejudice the appeal that would take place at the end of the month. Environmental Health officers would monitor any odour nuisance which would also be monitored by the Environment Agency under the environmental permit; the business aspects of chicken farming was not a material consideration when dealing with the planning application.
Consideration was given to:
· The size of the proposed development
· Increased vehicle movement and size of vehicles
· Feeding of the biomass unit and vehicle movement with regard to this
· The need for Condition 8 to be clarified
· Farm diversification
· Landscaping should mitigate any visual impact
· Waste would be transferred straight to the AD plant
· Concerns of the local residents and businesses with regard to odour emissions
· Industrialisation in the countryside
· Cumulative effect with regard to similar businesses in the area
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with the exception of Condition 8 where the Head of Planning and Regeneration be given delegated authority to review it to consider the effectiveness of the wording of the condition.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr Mrs H Bainbridge)
Notes:
(i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as Mr Cole and his extended family were known to her and she also knew many of the residents in the area;
(ii) Cllr S G Flaws declared a personal interest as one of the objectors was known to him;
(iii) Cllrs B A Moore and R L Stanley declared personal interests as they knew objectors to the application;
(iv) Mr Cole (applicant) spoke;
(v) Mr Lloyd spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(vi) Cllr Grant spoke on behalf of Thelbridge Parish Council;
(vii) The Chairman read statements from Cllrs Mrs J B Binks and Mrs M E Squires (Ward Members);
(viii) Cllr R L Stanley requested that his vote against the decision be recorded;
(ix) The following late information was reported: Page 86: The West Country Free Range Farmers group have confirmed that they do not object to the proposals.
In addition 3 further objections have been received : Concerns remain regards the scope of net additional trips on the highway that would be generated, linked trips between Menchine Farm and other farms in the locality transporting chicken waste to the site, the perceived industrialisation of the locality and the need for a farm waste plan.
Officer response: Clarity has been provided on these matters in the report as circulated.
(d) No 4 on the Plans List (15/012611/MFUL - Erection of 5 additional poultry units (5040 sq.m) and biomass boiler unit; formation of attenuation pond, access track, and hardstanding; landscaping; and associated infrastructure – land at NGR 285047 114124 (Edgeworthy Farm) Nomansland).
The Principal Planning Officer outlined the contents of the report by way of presentation highlighting the site location plan, the elevations of the proposed chicken sheds, biomass plant room and office. Visualisations submitted by the applicant were viewed along with photographs from various aspects of the site. He stated that Environmental Health officers were satisfied with odour management and a permit issued by the Environment Agency would be required. He addressed the issues with regard to any cumulative impact of the AD plant and the wind turbines and that the chicken litter would be moved to the AD plant at Menchine farm
Consideration was given to:
· The need for the applicant to diversify and that farmers had to invest in the future
· Cumulative effect
· Traffic movements and highway issues
· Industrialisation of the countryside
· The need for conditions to be reinforced
· The need for condition 8 to be clarified
· Transport routes
RESOLVED that planning permission be granted subject to conditions as recommended by the Head of Planning and Regeneration with the exception of Condition 8 where the Head of Planning and Regeneration be given delegated authority to review it to consider the effectiveness of the wording of the condition.
(Proposed by Cllr P J Heal and seconded by Cllr K I Busch)
Notes:
(i) Cllr Mrs F J Colthorpe declared a personal interest as the applicant and some of the objectors were known to her, she was also the Ward Member;
(ii) Cllrs B A Moore and R L Stanley declared personal interests as objectors to the scheme were known to them;
(iii) Mr Lake (applicant) spoke;
(iv) Miss Coffin spoke on behalf of the objectors;
(v) Cllr R L Stanley requested that his vote against the decision be recorded;
(vi) Cllr B A Moore requested that his abstention from voting be recorded.
Supporting documents: