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 Tony White, referring to item 11 on the agenda, asked how confident are the committee that what has been built already and what remains to be built will actually follow any permission granted? An example of this are the two driers, the synopsis of changes states that there will be two dryers of 43m in length, drawings show two drawings end to end which should total 86m, they are next to the silage clamps which are 60m long but the drawing shows the clamps as longer. Which is correct and who is checking on this sort of thing? Given GFL’s contempt for the planning process on this site what steps will the planning officer take to ensure that the end result is within the parameters allowed? Also as a large part of the site has been built without planning permission do the Councillors agree with the officers previous assertion that this in no way sets a precedent. Another authority has recently been quoted as saying that a similar situation “a pattern of behaviour has characterised the permissions at this site, essentially the planning process has been treated with contempt and a loss of faith in the public in the planning process makes future planning decisions on biogas plants much harder to achieve “.
Mr Peter Robins, referring to item 11 on the agenda, said that given the history of what has gone on local residents have no confidence that Greener for Life will stay within any permission granted. Referring to the report it appears that the original plan for the AD unit can no longer be implemented. Can they explain why this is? If Greener for Life have created the problem by not providing a coherent report in the first place Members of the Council should not feel responsible for the predicament that the company now finds itself in. Hopefully the Committee Members will vote with their consciences and not how any political party dictates. If it does get approval how long will it take for the trees to grow to give sufficient screen from the site from public view and who is going to monitor this site to ensure that everything is carried out correctly?
Mrs A Vinton, referring to item 11, said that the transport statement provided by the applicant relies heavily on the fact that 251 of the acres to be used for food stocks and digester spreading are accessible land without the use of the public highway. However 119 of these acres, that’s over a 3rd, are not part of Hartnoll Farm and lie to the west of Manley Lane and are within the area marked out as part of the Eastern Urban Extension. That is the 26 acres in the amended statement in the additional statement added to the acres in the original document. Can your officers tell us what Greener for Life intend to do if and when this acreage is no longer available and have they supplied your officers with figures for the increased amount of traffic that would be generated on the public highway if alternative sources had to be found? Furthermore can your officers assure us that stringent checks will be made on the recorded number of vehicle movements and when the figure of 1872 vehicle movements per year has been logged the digester will be shut down and no further traffic movements take place.
Mr Goff Welchman had supplied a written question, referring to item 11 on the agenda, which the Chairman read. Does this committee believe that it is right, to allow an approval, then when caught building a larger construction in the wrong location, put in a revised plan, and receive approval? If this application is not rejected and appropriate enforcement action taken then this committee will send a clear message to all developers that they can get away with similar deceptions in future in our area.
Mr K Grantham, referring to item 5 on the plans list, said that the application had been called in by a Ward Member as it was considered that the application, if approved, would constitute over development of the site. The Parish Council and some objectors take the view that apart from over development of the site the visual mass and design of the extension and the additional garage will fail to meet standards of high quality design and look unsightly as described in the Willand Parish Council representation. This view is also shared by another Ward Member. Should not those views be listened to and given due weight when compared with the alternative view of an officer?
Mr B Warren of Willand Parish Council referring to item 5 on the plans list said that in their representation, which is contained in the officer’s report, the Parish Council suggested the inclusion of 2 conditions which are set out towards the bottom of page 5 of the plans list. These were suggested if Members were minded to grant approval as by closing off one door of the main house on the ground floor the garage conversion/extension could easily become a separate dwelling. Those conditions have been part of two separate approvals granted by officers in relation to similar applications elsewhere within the parish in the last year.
The suggested inclusion was made by the Parish Council as a way of ensuring there was not a future separate of accommodation and in the interests of the planning process being seen to be consistent. No mention has been made by the officer as to why this representation has been discounted.
If Members approve the application could they please instruct the inclusion of those suggested conditions?
Mr Govett, referring to Gibbet Moor on the agenda asked if the Committee were aware that residents of Nomansland are very surprised that the Highway Authority are prepared to provide/recommend a passing place in Nomansland to accommodate the transport requirements for yet another seemingly small business, which it is not, as it is part of the Greener for Life company. The provision of the proposed passing place will only exacerbate the speed of vehicles on this unclassified lane. Members will already be aware of the problems of vehicles exceeding the legal speed limit in this hamlet which the police, owing to the lack of resources are unable to control.
Would it not be better that any monies available were allocated to the provision of traffic calming measures in our hamlet, through width restrictions, which works well in other villages, before a major road traffic accident occurs where there could be loss of life, and Members were implicit to.
Mrs L Sheppard, referring to the item on the Gibbet Moor application asked are we safe to assume that the committee will bear in mind the recent appeal relating to the increase in the size of the anaerobic digester plant at Menchine, when the inspector stated that the appeal was dismissed because of the effect on increased traffic movements on the local community. Therefore to approve the Gibbett Moor application will by default increase traffic in direct contradiction of the Inspectors decision.
Mrs S Smythe, referring to the Gibbett Moor application asked are Members aware that prior to the Section 50 Order being granted to Greener for Life to drill with the underground mole and lay ducting to carry electricity cables from Menchine to Edgeworthy, down the C308, there had been no problems with it. The surface was acceptable and the ditches well defined and carrying water to its egress. The road is currently closed for a period of up to 18 months. This is as a result of it flooding for the first time in living memory and the ditches eroded resulting in at least 6 vehicles having to be towed from it. We are now told that pipe work carrying the water needs replacing as it is old. It is felt by everyone that the passing place is certainly unnecessary and it is the reconstruction of the pipe work and the reopening of this road which is essential.
Mr David Manley, speaking as the agent for Red Linhay, said that given the response and the implications report with the reasons for refusal proposed at the last planning committee and the fact there was a recommendation for approval for this application can officers please elaborate on the local authorities strength of defence at appeal and related to this could officers in their experience elaborate on the resources required to defend an appeal, not including any appeal costs that may be claimed by the applicant?
Mr Govier, speaking on behalf of the Tiverton Hospital League of Friends, regarding the Alexandra Lodge application asked are the Councillors aware that a considerable number of beds at the hospital are being blocked by medically fit older people with no suitable onwards housing?
Dr O’Kelly, speaking regarding the Alexandra Lodge application, asked if Councillors were aware that in the 16 years that he had been in the town at least 50 beds had been lost in the community. Charlton Lodge and other homes had closed, in that time the population had aged considerably and it is expected that of the expected growth in population in the next 5 years 4000 will be over 60. If you are going to turn down the application at Alexandra Lodge what alternative accommodation have you got in place that you can deliver in the same timescales?
Mr Sam Tabiner, regarding Alexandra Lodge asked are Councillors aware that Alexandra Lodge is specifically stated in the Councils Older Person Strategy that they will vigorously pursue the scheme at this site and find a suitable registered provider and fund the facility. Under the current proposal the scheme will be delivered without any of this funding which can be used elsewhere.
Mrs E Fathi, regarding Alexandra Lodge, asked are Councillors aware that Alexandra Lodge has been used institutionally for at least 60 years, is in a very poor state of repair and requires substantial investment to refurbish it. If this application is not approved today Tivertons Almshouse Trust, as landowner, will need to consider its position. Given the high demand for this type of accommodation in this area could Councillors please explain which town centre site will meet the policy of this council if this site were not approved?
Mrs S Herniman, regarding Alexandra Lodge asked are Members aware that the proposals for Alexandra Lodge are supported by a number of local organisations including Clare House Surgery, Senior Voice, Tiverton Hospital League of Friends, Neil Parish MP and the NHS Trust.
Cllr Mrs J Binks, regarding Gibbett Moor asked if the committee were convinced beyond all reasonable doubt that the traffic calming measures for the C308 are robust enough to mitigate the impact of the additional traffic movement caused by the development to the local residents and will the proposed passing space address the road safety and amenity issues for residents and why the contribution by the applicants towards this has been dropped? Could you ensure that all breaches of conditions are met with the strictest of enforcement?
Mr T Payne, referring to item 11 on the agenda said that Greener for Life have submitted plans for AD plants which appear, as they have not been built within the planning permissions granted, to be built to deceive local councils from the outset. Councillors will no doubt remember that in January 2016 the planning inspector heard an appeal for an AD at Menchine Farm where an attempt was made to double the capacity of the AD plant. There seems to be a pattern emerging where small plants are applied for and then when permission is granted application is made for a larger plant. In the case of the site in Halberton a retrospective application was made only after work had started. I wish to ask how many site visits have been made by Councillors and if they have seen recent aerial photographs and given that the Inspector dismissed the appeal at Menchine Farm and ruled in Mid Devon’s favour last month will this give Members encouragement to stand against this application and support the local residents who have written more than a hundred letters of objection, to protect the environment and in particular the canal.
Mr B Cordon, referring to agenda item 11, said that the original plans showed a gas line running from Red Linhay to Willand but that local farmers had refused permission for this and those plans had now changed. When the LPA was asked about the proposed pipe line they informed the Parish Council that they had no idea that such a pipe line had ever been planned. Therefore this application is a totally new application and explains why all the new buildings are needed, the flare is needed and the site has changed. Locals are aware of this. This site is called Red Linhay but it is part of Hartnoll Farm. Does this mean that material cannot be kept on Hartnoll Farm if it is not part of the site? It is deception to call the site Red Linhay. Also people travelling on Crown Hill are complaining about the state of the road and it will not be able to cope with further traffic.
Mr A Pilgrim, referring to item 11 on the agenda, asked that Members consider thinking about the correctness morally on voting on an application that has a very poor foundation, would you be voting for the best thing for local people?
Mr C Lloyd, referring to the Gibbett Moor application, asked referring to page 17 on the application which said that there was no significant problem as far as the Environmental Health officer was concerned regarding chicken waste passing through Nomansland. He said that he could not see how they could have arrived at that decision, could the officer explain what chicken waste units had been transported to date.
The Chairman stated that answers to the questions would be provided when the items were debated.