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:
Mrs Vinton referring to Item 5 (Red Linhay) on the agenda spoke regarding traffic monitoring, I understand that difficulty of monitoring traffic to the site as the traffic statement refers only to the number of loads being delivered and not to traffic as a whole, thus excluding general farm traffic. The number of proposed traffic movements per annum is given by the applicant as 784 but nowhere can I see this figure in Condition 10. Surely, without this figure, monitoring of log books or weighbridge records is futile? And, if this figure were to be exceeded, what enforcement action would be taken?
Energy Output – GFL have expressed concern regarding Condition 23 relating to the output from the plant. As it stands, an exceedance of just one kw would put them in breach. If the wording was changed to “an average output of 500kw” over a given period, surely this would allow for any day to day fluctuations? During a recent conversation with Mr Clapp he told me that he will be responsible for the day to day operation of the plant and that he can easily increase the energy output up to 1MW using feedstock from his own farm. This is, apparently, why the plan is the size it is and why 2 CHP units are on site. GFL, however state that the second CHP unit is only for back up and maintenance purposes. If the second unit remains onsite, is there anyway that it could be made impossible to use both units simultaneously?
Mr White again referring to Item 5 (Red Linhay) on the agenda stated that at the last meeting we were shown a drawing, number WIN01_REDLINHAY2_e10V_001 Fig 3 south elevation overlay. It was explained that this drawing was an overlay of the original granted permission (shown in black) compared with the new application (shown in red). The purpose being to show how moving the digester to its new position down the slope would result in the overall height of the digester being lower despite its increased size to allow for a 1000kw capacity. Unfortunately, what has been built does not match the drawing. Yet again, the application does not match the actual.
In the drawing the proposed dome is a shallow arc, unlike the original application which is a hemisphere. What has been built is clearly a hemisphere as all the photo’s taken by the planning officer clearly show. This results in the final height being greater than claimed in the application.
The technical report presented at the last meeting confirmed this, saying that the dome was at least equal to or higher than the adjacent farm buildings, despite the application claiming that it would be lower. This is clearly yet another example of GFL’s cynical and deceitful approach to planning applications. Will the committee confirm that GFL will be asked to ensure the finished construction will match the application.
Cllr Mrs J B Binks referring to Item 6 (Enforcement),Item 5 Furzeland stated that the landowners were desperate to comply with the planning permission but that things had got in the way including bats. She asked whether the committee could exercise some discretion with regard to the period of compliance for a further 4-6 weeks. The reason for the building being higher than expected was that the two historic vents had been incorporated into rather than out of the construction, they have been rather foolish but this was not deliberate. Please consider extending the period of compliance so th at the bat issue can be dealt with.
Dr Bratby referring to item 5 (Red Linhay) on the agenda stated that at the previous meeting reference had been made to report by Steve Quartermaine regarding planning policy to clamp down on unauthorised development, and that unauthorised development was a material consideration, however within the report I find no reference to this material consideration. (1) Have the officers given weight to this material planning consideration, (2) if not why not. (3) if the answer to questions (1) is no should be officer’s recommendation be reconsidered? (4) with regard to Condition 22 can it be clarified what the first operation is, as there has been hundreds of movements before the operations of the plant commences.
Mr Scott again referring to Item 5 on the agenda referred to a recent court case regarding pollution from AD plants and the fines/costs that had been incurred. He stated that GFL had total disregard to the management of other sites and had ignored the planning permission at Red Linhay. If an incident occurred in this location there were concerns regarding the canal. How can the company be trusted to build any plant, there is disregard for any record keeping, how can the company be trusted. In view of this modified application, please refuse.
Mr Pilgrim referring to Item 5 on the agenda stated that it is difficult to challenge figures that keep changing and considering the trustworthiness of the applicant over the last 7 months, it is difficult to make a sound decision on proposals that are changeable, I therefore ask you to consider not approving this application.
Mr Wright referring to Item 12 (Exeter Road Silverton) on the agenda stated that he had spent a lot of time trying to get the application right and had had several meetings with planning officers, the reason there were 2 properties proposed on the site was that a single dwelling would have been expensive to purchase. He had noted the concerns of the Conservation Officer and requested that he be allowed to revise the scheme to take into consideration the Conservation Officer’s remarks.
The Chairman read a set of questions from Dr Bell referring to Item 15 (Waddeton Park) on the agenda:
This application implies that a specific section of land is involved for purchase by MDDC whereas the original outline application sought to spread affordable housing throughout this development.
Has MDDC's policy changed concerning locations for affordable housing?
If so, which specific section of land on the Waddeton Park site is required by MDDC?
What will be the total cost of the land to MDDC including the £120.000 contribution?
How much does MDDC expect to spend on the 70 houses they wish to build?
When does MDDC propose to commence the work to build the properties?
Can we, the tax payers, afford this approach at this present time?
When the answers to the above are provided, does the Planning Committee believe it is a good idea to support this approach to the provision of affordable housing?
The Chairman stated that answers to questions would be provided when the items were discussed.