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:
Miss S Coffin, referring to item 8 on the agenda said that with regard to the apparent high performance figures stated in paragraph 7 (page 16) we dispute the satisfactory situation reflected in the stated 95%. This is not the experience of affected Templeton residents over the past 10 – 12 years although it could be construed as reflecting the continuing effort and attitude of your officers to repeatedly rebuff and frustrate potential complainants.
Affected parishioners have experienced out of hours reports misdirected and delayed. Out of hours operators refusing complaints over the phone, officers visiting after the incident or pre-warning the offender of their presence. The problems Templeton has experienced have been regarding noise, increased traffic, fly infestations, odour, and breaches concerning boreholes with potential pollution. Your officers in Planning and Environmental Health have been unable or unwilling to accept that there may be a difference between rural and urban nuisance but it still needs genuine investigation instead of taking the route of least resistance and appeasement to what can, in some instances, verge on intimidation and bullying. Although initially it might appear easier and cheaper to treat the residents as a nuisance it emboldens the offender and leads to an escalation of the problem.
Since 2005 the individual referred to enlarged his dairy herd and operated a piece-meal mega farm without planning approval as well as operating an unlicensed milk transfer operation from an unsuitable location. The dairy business went into administration in approximately 2014 and residents have reported that he now appears to be operating an unlicensed transfer station from Cleave Farm and Crossparks, importing and exporting both slurry, digestate and feedstocks to and from the 8 Greener for Life Anaerobic Digesters across three counties. This includes the mixing of slurry and digestate from AD’s in an open slurry pit just under and just over 100m from two individual properties. The unlicensed change of use has resulted in continual increase in emptying and filling of the slurry pits/containers at Crossparks and Cleave, rather than the acceptable two or three times a year.
Now we have experienced an escalation with a potential risk to health over the last three weeks, when effected residents suddenly experienced varying degrees of exposure to heavy unidentified gas omissions from Crossparks pit, resulting in adverse health symptoms which they have logged with their respective doctors with emergency services becoming involved. The affected residents are now insisting on an urgent correlated and comprehensive investigation between planning, Environmental Health as well as the Environment Agency and DEFRA with genuine intention to resolve the reported issues rather than the continual passing of this complex problem between them.
Templeton residents ask why their wellbeing and quality of life under the relevant Human Rights Act should be considered any less important than that of other residents of Mid Devon District Council. It is not only towns and cities that are entitled to reasonable air quality. Surely everyone has the right to be able to breath in their own home and garden without adverse health effects.
After all, your enforcement officers were able to identify the potential detrimental effect on residents within 400m of the excavated empty slurry pit at Pulsards Farm, Pennymoor ENF/16/00269/NUDRU for potentially exactly the same type of transfer operation, which they commented would be unlikely to obtain retrospective planning permission. Yet two properties within 100m distance from Crossparks slurry pit, which is actively being used as a mixing pit and as a transfer station, is not recognised as a nuisance by Environmental Health, who have been less than forthcoming in their efforts to acknowledge or resolve the continuing nuisance issues.
Finally may we respectfully remind Councillors that nuisance is within your councils remit under duties given to local authorities by the Environmental Protection Act 1990 you are required to investigate statutory nuisance complaints and to serve a notice when there is a statutory nuisance. You also have similar powers when there is a situation that is prejudicial to health. The standards of evidence needed to serve a statutory notice is on a balance of probability and not beyond all reasonable doubt.
Equally as we understand it a statutory nuisance to our residents will occur long before matters become prejudicial to health. However, continuous exposure to odours, that have already caused to varying degrees adverse effects on different individuals and which had already been reported to your officers would surely reflect on your councils responsibility for any ensuing heightened or continuing health problems.
Miss Coffey also referred to a question that she had asked on 12 December to which she had not yet received a response.
The Chairman indicated that these questions would be answered in writing.