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:
Ann Vinton asked a question in relation item 10 on the agenda, Red Linhay, Crown Hill. She understood that approaches had been made to several local farmers about the possibilities of them taking digestate from the site as fertiliser. As the applicant had stated that digestate will only be used on Hartnoll Farm and the land at Manley Lane, can a condition be placed to the effect that all digestate must be used as stated and not exported to other sites? This has direct implications on traffic movements and as Greener For Life (GFL) seem unable to tell the truth about traffic movements as proven at other sites even the Planning Inspector found a significant problem with the data that was supplied to him. Please will you, as they have done in Cornwall, ask for the installation of monitoring equipment at the entrance to the site to enable the LPA to check the accuracy of their figures? Finally, do you have any control over the traffic movements once permission is granted as presumably you would be able to refuse on grounds of excessive traffic but can you take enforcement action if we suddenly find that the number of movements is greater than was expected?
Mr Tony White also asked a question regarding item 10, Red Linhay, Crown Hill. He stated that he was a Crown Hill resident near the site in question. The applicant had stated that all structures including the dome will be at a lower height than the existing and adjacent agricultural building. However, the technical report states that the constructed dome is equivalent or higher than the adjacent agricultural building. The current digester is stated as being 1.9m higher than the consented structure. Therefore would it not be reasonable to ask that the dome be lowered accordingly? As well as the increased digester capacity, 2 x 500kw CHP units have been seen on the site. Given GFL’s previous actions, is it not likely that a 1 megawatt plant is in fact being built and another retrospective application will soon be submitted, along with further threats of an expensive appeal process? Can I suggest that is this application is approved, vigorous and enforceable conditions are put in place to prevent this inevitable expansion?
Dr Bratby also spoke in relation to item 10. He stated that he had four questions to address to the Committee. His first question concerned the three GFL plants at Red Linhay, at Menchine Farm and Edgeworthy Farm in Nomansland. The Chairman asked Dr Bratby to only refer to the Red Linhay application. He continued by stating that he was sure Members were aware that GFL had no regard for planning conditions and the plant had not been built to the approved plans as specified in the planning condition. It would be too much to assume that this systematic behaviour is due to incompetence so it must be due to deliberate policy of GFL to ignore the conditions and carry out unlawful developments. The longer that GFL is allowed to continue its unlawful activities the worse the situation will get. GFL will assume it has carte blanche to carry on with its unlawful activities. The sooner a stop is put to this the more likely it is that the financial backing for GFL will cease and the whole sorry mess will end. My question therefore is, when is the Council actually going to do something positive and stop all these unlawful activities of GFL?
His second question concerned the claimed output of the Red Linhay plant. Are the committee aware that the plant is more than twice as big as necessary for the 500kw output and that the investment company behind the plant is claiming that the output is 1000kw (1 megawatt)? Are the committee prepared for a new application to double the plant output with the corresponding doubling of the traffic movements?
His third question concerned Government policy on anaerobic digesters. They are supposed to be used to enable farmers to extract energy from animal waste and the Government has finally twigged on to the fact that the system is being abused and that farmers are taking advantage of the huge subsidies on offer to turn crops rather than animal waste into energy. The latest Government position on anaerobic digesters is given in a report entitled ‘Review of support to anaerobic digestion and micro combined heat and power with the feed in tariff scheme’ dated 26 May 2016. In that report the Government stated ‘It is also Government policy that the primary purpose of agricultural land should be for growing food. We propose introducing sustainability criteria for AD and the feed in tariffs for new installations to implement sustainability criteria and restrict payments based on feed stock type for new AD installations being deployed under the fit scheme. It is not our intention to support an AD industry which has a high dependency on crops so we need to consider ways to ensure that AD installations operating on farms are based on the processes of waste and residues. We propose to introduce feed stock restrictions under the fit scheme to minimise the use of crops.’ Are the committee aware of the Government policy on AD’s given in this new report?
Asking his final question Dr Bratby stated that in 2014 Planning Minister Brandon Lewis MP said that ‘We will not sit back and allow people who bypass the law to then benefit from the protection it can offer. We have already strengthened the powers that councils have to enforce planning rules and take action against breaches which fuel community tensions. This will tackle the abuse of the system.’ The plain English guide to the Localism Act of 2011 under the heading ‘Strengthening Enforcement Rules’ said ‘For people to have a real sense that planning system is working for them they need to know that the rules they draw up will be respected. The Localism Act will strengthen planning authorities powers to tackle abuses of the planning system.’
Last year DCLG chief planner, Steve Quartermaine, announced new planning policy to clamp down on unauthorised development and wrote to all chief planning officers stating that ‘The new policy will make intentional unauthorised development a material consideration that will be weighed up in the determination of planning applications and appeals. This is designed to make it harder to get retrospective planning permission. The policy will apply to all new applications and appeals received from 31st August 2015. The Government is concerned about the harm caused by development undertaken in advance of planning permission and the expensive and time consuming enforcement action that local authorities are forced to take.’
Seeking permission for AD’s and then building plant that is larger and different from that for which permission has been granted is a tactic GFL has adopted in numerous locations in the Westcountry indicating a persistent and deliberate intention to deceive local authorities and above all local residents who have to suffer the consequences. This is evidenced by applications for retrospective permissions applications in Mid Devon, North Devon, East Devon, Cornwall and South Somerset. In the light of this and the Governments attempts to clamp down on unauthorised development it is very surprising that neither the consultants not the officers report have mentioned that it is contrary to public policy, case law and planning guidance to allow flagrant and intentional breaches of planning permissions and that intentional unauthorised development is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and appeals. Are the committee aware of all this information?
Peter Davies referring to the 19 Exeter Road, Silverton, the application stated that at present 19 Exeter Road was a bungalow with a well-proportioned front and back garden which was well integrated within a row of other bungalows. It is faced by a hedge bank that is sympathetic to the country lane. Mr Luke Smith a planning officer from this authority wrote after a site visit to the client’s planner and he wrote this ‘I’m concerned about the principle of development of two units. Increased density places pressure on locating buildings closer to boundaries. It is my suggestion that your client considers a single unit with amenity space to the front and rear.’ What did he get wrong?
Mrs Pauline Davies then asked a question in relation to the same application. She stated that the proposed plans required the demolition of most of the old Devon bank bordering the lane to facilitate two driveway entrances leading to a large area of hardstanding in front of the buildings. Do you really consider this respects or enhances the street scene as viewed from the adjacent conservation area? I must mention that we have been disappointed that the height of the proposed dwellings in relation to the existing one has only become available this morning. Surely this should have been on the original plans. Your planning officers should have queried this at an earlier stage. Why did your planning officer give recommendation before this was available?
Terry Payne referring to item 10 on the agenda, Red Linhay, Crown Hill, stated that as additional facilities may already be being installed on the site to potentially double its capacity, have planning officers visited the site and do they consider that they have enough technical expertise or backup to fully understand what is being built there now? Will they please confirm what is being built. Is it for a 500kw or a 1000kw output plant? The technical report under consideration today states that the site is more clearly visible from many more viewpoints than was previously ever envisaged when consent was given originally. Had this been obvious at the time the application might well have been refused. The question was asked at April’s meeting regarding the amount of time it would take for any planting scheme to successfully shield the site, the answer was given as several years. The planting scheme supplied by the applicant states that 40 – 90cm in height will be used. Do the Members consider that this is acceptable? Could a condition be put on any permission granted that the size of trees and shrubs planted should be of a much larger size? Finally, the Department for Energy and Climate Change, as we’ve heard, no longer supports the growing of crops as fuel for AD’s because they say it is not carbon cost effective as per their latest report in May 2016. They are proposing to reduce, as we know, and deliminate support for new installations relying on crops as their primary feed stock. Therefore what assurances can you give us that in future this AD will not be converted to a waste disposal facility as this would of course have a significant impact, again, on traffic movements?
Mr John Massey, referring to the Castle Primary School, Tiverton application stated that he would like the committee a number of factors: The accommodation of the building used to be for 600 pupils and 39 staff as a grammar school, it now contained 333 pupils and 26 staff and all those pupils are aged 5 – 10 as opposed to 11 – 16, that is, the school is half as crowded now as it was when it was a grammar school. The physical condition of the building which allegedly gave rise to the reason for the building to be demolished includes a leaking roof, high ceilings, asbestos in the roof, excessive heat gain and loss due to large windows plus rooms larger than current standards, distance to the toilets for small children, a split level top corridor and old fashioned radiators. I would suggest that all these factors are easily solvable by conventional architectural expertise and I point out that a recent Ofsted inspection upgraded the rating of this school despite it having all the above factors.
In planning terms the school was built in 1912, it’s not listed but it is characteristic of the period. A new building would be required to have a 60 year design life, the existing building exceeds this by over one and a half times. There are no public buildings of this type at all in Tiverton. The school forms a unity with the wilderness and the Academy building on the same site. Most important of all the building is in a conservation area. In financial terms the demolition/rebuild is probably the most expensive option. Demolition but retention of the façade, that is, what can be seen from the street, has been considered but this financial information remains commercially confidential and would remain so even if the details were sought under the Freedom of Information Act. I would like the committee conclude that the case for demolition and rebuild has not been made by the EFA, therefore this course should not be pursued.
The Chairman indicated that the answers to the questions raised would be provided at the agenda item.