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:
Referring to item 5 on the agenda Mr B Govett, a resident of Nomansland, said I would like to firstly correct a statement made by your planning officer Mr S Trafford at the planning meeting on April 6th. It was stated that lorries have been going off the lane into the ditch for the last 18 months. This is a totally incorrect statement and misleading to you all. Photo A (provided to Chair) shows the ditch bank undamaged. In fact the problem only started as a result of damage and bank eradication caused by the large lorry unit which undertook the laser pipe installation for connecting Edgeworthy Farm to Menchine farm (photos B and C). Note ditch bank still intact at commencement of the work.
The road verge was destroyed by the large unit and as a result, lorries have gone off the road into the ditch as it was continually filled with water. As the road had no denotation drivers assumed it was a puddle, not a ditch and tried to drive through it (photos d and e) illustrates.
As there have not been problems in the past the only works necessary is the reinstatement of the ditch bank. It must be appreciated the installation of a passing bay has never been and is not required now or in the future. The only thing the passing bay will do is to encourage vehicles to drive faster down the lane which will result in further eradication of our quality of life. It will also exacerbate the probability of a road traffic collision which could be overcome.
Members should be aware of their responsibility to ensure the safety of rate payers and visitors using the facilities, the countryside, in the district which must not be overridden by profit for a company.
Any monies available from the county council should be used to introduce road calming measures by width restrictions in Nomansland. Members should already be aware that there is a perpetual problem of traffic illegally speeding through our hamlet. This can, and should, be overcome by reducing the road width in places similar to those used and work well in other villages in Devon. Regrettably, the police do not have the resources to continually monitor and therefore overcome speeding in locations. Therefore installing a passing bay will not solve any problems, only exacerbate them.
Members, please be aware, if a road traffic collision occurs as a result of an incorrect decision, you will be morally responsible. Therefore I would like my comments recorded in the minutes please as I may refer to them if a traffic collision does occur in the future.
Mrs K Govett, referring to item 5 on the agenda asked why is there is a need for the proposed passing bay in the back lane if there are only going to be 9 tractor units going to Menchine per cycle, from Gibbett Moor? Could the Planning Department please make it clear as to how many units we could accurately expect if this planning application is allowed to go ahead? I suspect it may be more than 9.
Our lane leads down to a very dangerous junction on the Rackenford road which doubles back on itself as you can see from the map on the overhead. Putting in a passing bay will only speed tractors up making this junction even more dangerous. You cannot exit the lane in the Tiverton direction at the opposite end, as you will see from the map the junction on to the B3137 does not allow a left hand turn without turning across the road onto oncoming traffic and towards the obscured bend. The only safe route to Tiverton is via the junction onto the Rackenford road and turning right towards the pub. This junction not only turns back on itself as the map shows but is made even more blind by the hedgerow which obscures oncoming traffic. Photo a shows the visibility when stopping in a driving position before turning out of the lane. Photo b shows the visibility having pulled out of the junction by about 2m. You will note the skid marks showing on the road, the photo was taken this morning.
If additional movements in the form of tractor trailer units to and from Menchine Farm are allowed to use the route through our hamlet there will be an accident without doubt – how serious? Do you really want to wait and see?
Miss Coffin referring to Item 5 (Gibbett Moor) on the agenda stated that: Do Members believe that the implications report answers the concerns raised at 6th April meeting, I refer: lack of clarity in the number of birds to be farmed in consequential difference to all figures supplied, officers suggest it will be controlled by Environment Permit, it will not. The planning application before you can accommodate 60,000 or 95,000 chickens per cycle as it stands dependant only on the method of welfare utilised, waste plan should encompass the term manure, if Menchine AD plant does not take the manure from the site via its intake shed and dispose of it as waste, it will mean it being disposed of as manure fertiliser on farmland. The site is not big enough and is under the control of an administrator, we already have a serious problem with proper manure storage and disposal in this area. How will any route or vehicle journey be monitored and enforced? Traffic assessment has not encompassed the cumulative impact and safety of all existing and affected businesses and residents and other types of farms on what are substandard roads, I respectfully ask do the council feel that the officer’s report has fully discharged its responsibility to the local and wider environment as well as local tax payers and residents.
Mrs E Collie, referring to item 5 on the agenda, asked why there is such an acceptance by the planning officers of the biased information in the Transport Planning Associates report and a total disregard of the views of the inhabitants who live on the roads concerned. They completely fail o accept that irrespective of whether the chicken manure is going to Menchine or any other local farm, Gibbett Moor is a new development and will produce an additional 820 tons of manure to be disposed of via the local rural network. I would ask that Members disregard the figures in table 5.1 of the report. Are Members aware that on page 29 in the implications report under reason for refusal 4 there is misleading information? The Planning Officer in his report on page 29 states “within a recent appeal decision to allow the capacity of Menchine AD to be increased the planning officer etc”. This is a completely misleading statement suggesting the appeal was successful when the appeal was actually dismissed. The same paragraph also refers to the ‘improved infrastructure on the B3137’. Again this is misleading as an assumption is being made that another poultry unit in the hamlet will be built, at Edgeworthy Farm, to which this statement relates.
The Chairman indicated that the answer to questions raised would be provided at the agenda item.