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:
Sarah Coffin from Templeton regarding agenda item 13 application Menchine Farm, building to process digestate fibre into pellets.
I note your officer recommends approval with attached conditions. May I refer to conditions and “reasons for conditions” 6 and 7?
Condition 6 limits the process facility described in this application to only digestate fibre produced at Menchine AD so as to minimise the number of associated vehicular trips and does not allow for any importing of digestate fibre from any AD site.
Condition 7 requires records to be kept of the amount of fibre processed in the building as well as records of the load weight and number of vehicles exporting processed material from same.
May I ask Councillors how these two conditions will be effectively monitored and enforced, given the applicants failure in the past to supply accurate detailed records – as was revealed at the appeal hearing on 26 January 2016?
May I therefore request that should councillors be so minded as to accept the officers recommendation and approve this application, the following condition 8 is also included:-
A fit for purpose electrical monitoring/CCTV/data collection system is fitted as agreed with the LPA that will allow either direct monitoring or independent access by the LPA to all the necessary information required to comply with conditions 6 and 7.
This application was applied for after the application to double the AD output from 500kWE to 1MWe, but before the dismissal of the consequential appeal. The pelletiser building is thus bigger than necessary for a 500 kWE plant. Local residents are still concerned that the AD plant will operate at a higher output than permitted, given that there are two CHP units on site. Please therefore include the following condition 9 “the development shall not be commenced until a mechanical interlock system is in place to prevent simultaneous operation of the two CHP units”.
The reasons for these additional conditions are as follows:
To prevent any furtive increase in electricity production to the grid or to facilitate the process of drying and pelletising the digestate.
To prevent any additional costs to the tax payer in pursing/verifying complete and correct data records from the applicant.
To assist applicant in ensuring any finished written data submitted is accurate and supplied within parameters required.
In the interests of planning openness and clarity as per government criteria for the revised planning and conditions guidelines.
This process does not come under any EA controls by way of additional permit or licence as the digestate is already designated as being from agricultural sources. Only the product requires certification.
To ensure the minimising of vehicular trips and protect the general amenities of the locality of Nomansland, as stated per reasons 6 and 7 and to enable the effective enforcement of conditions 6 and 7.
Should the applicant, given the past history, appeal these conditions it is our opinion that they are robustly defendable.
They are both reasonable, enforceable and with today’s technology, possible.
Mr Scott representing CPRE and referring to Item 13 on the agenda (Menchine Farm) asked what plans has Mid Devon District Council put in place if the plant exceeds 500kw of energy?
Mrs K Govett, referring to item 13 on the agenda said I am sure you are aware of the concerns held by the CPRE over the growing number of AD plants and the effects they are having on rural England. Surely as a planning committee you would commend their work and principals.
With regard to planting schemes my understanding is that the planting scheme already approved, supposedly to hide the AD unit, has not yet been done on the site. Surely this was all part and parcel of the first application. As now reported in your document the location of the new building will mean that it now cannot be undertaken as per the original agreed plan. Surely this makes a farce of the previous approval for the scheme. Additionally there is no new planting scheme identifying species, mix and size of plant stock to be used.
Weight logs – I was concerned to be given sight of a copy of the logs which had been supplied by Mr Cole. Many of the records were incomplete and did not show accurate information.
Inaccuracies – I find the information regarding the new building misleading in the reports to this committee. On page 77 item 3.4 it states in the second paragraph that the new building will be divided into three areas of one third each. However on page 82 under “proposed development” third paragraph it states the building will be split internally into 2 parts with no mention of storage area for finalised pellets. This would appear to show the inaccuracy of the plans submitted or will there be yet another planning application submitted for a storage shed?
Committee members, I ask you to consider just one more thing. Every time we have an addition to the original application, every time we have a new application for chicken sheds we hear – “but it is only another few more traffic movements”. Another 100 here and another 100 there. Barely another 1 per day. But what I do ask that you consider is that the movement of tractor trailer units into this industrialised site are concentrated into time periods and are a journey in and out. So comparison cannot be made over a year but over the number of days that transport in and out will be made. If you lived in Nomansland you would have more sympathy and understanding as to how our lives are being ruined. The map and report in this week’s Tiverton Gazette says it all and I hope that before you reach your decision you will all have looked at this article.
County Councillor Berry referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Brimstone Lane, Westleigh) asked how do you decide on what is isolated and a new home in the countryside, please define ‘isolated’ as there are 2 dwelling housesclose by and the Grand Western Canal is within 200 yards of the property site. Mr Caudwell agrees on the agricultural tie for the house and the land; when Planning Officers visited the site there weren't animals, the owner has been busy fencing all his fields so they are stock proof. Mr Caudwell proposes to use the buildings on the farm to rear calves and produce beef. The site has a grain store and machinery will be kept on site which needs to be supervised. There are no objectors to the application; planning policy is for guidance only, please consider this application as these people would like to get into farming.
The Chairman indicated that answers to questions would be given when the items were discussed.