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:
Mr Morgan, referring to Beare Mill said I am here to register my support and hope everything goes through to completion with the application for the barn which adjoins my property and everything that has happened so far has gone very well so there is no reason as far as I am concerned why it shouldn’t go to completion and they are doing everything in their power to keep it looking like the original building.
Mrs Nichols, referring to Beare Mill said I live at Beare farm, adjacent to these premises and I want to say that I whole heartily support the dwelling and consider that it will improve the area a tremendous amount and I am very happy with the way that it is being developed. They have gone to great effort and care to use materials that will enhance the building and keep it in character. It was an eyesore and we think it will be improved when it is developed.
Mrs Vinton, regarding Red Linhay said that an email from the applicant to the Planning Officer dated 4/11/16 pointed out that objectors to the plant were making simplistic comments and failed to take into account how an AD works. This was he stated due to lack of professional experience of AD technology. I personally lack experience but I have taken advice from chartered engineers and manufacturers of CPH units, none of whom would recommend the installation of two 500kw units to power a 500kw plant. As a regular maintenance takes less than 4 hours a fear of breakdown can be the only reason for a backup unit and I was advised that if this was concern developers should opt for 2 x 250 units. Having mentioned their experience at Menchine Farm being a factor in their decision to install two 500 units I researched dozens of planning applications for 500kw AD’s in England and Wales and only Greener For Life have applied for a second unit for maintenance and breakdown and they have only done so on sites where they have built the infrastructure to a much larger size than needed for 500kw production. My question is just how rigorously will the conditions put on this development be monitored and how quickly and effectively will enforcement action be taken to ensure we don’t wake up one day and find a megawatt AD in operation?
Clare Higgleston referring to Dulings said could the Planning Officer please qualify why he proposed to recommend this application when the views of the community, public comments on the portal, the concerns of parents regarding negative impacts on the school and the Parish Council all object to this proposed development and given that the developer chose not to conduct a community consultation as recommended in the Localism Bill. Will the Planning Officer please clarify what the area marked blue on the application planning status will change to and be used for?
Helen Olson referring to Dulings said what consideration has been given to the safety of the walk to school when the access to the school on Bewsley Hill has no footpaths at the top and bottom and this application will see an increase in school traffic both pedestrian and road traffic. There was information from 2012 that looked at these issues. Could the officer please confirm why the flood risk assessment and proposed ponds only consider the application site and do not allow for the additional surface water within the topographical catchment?
David Brassington referring to Dulings said in the planning committee agenda page 17 paragraph 5 and 6 the officer refers to the proposal on the old abattoir site which should not be considered in this application. However, could the officer confirm that if both applications are approved, totalling 100 houses, this will not have a cumulative and adverse impact on the village? Could the Planning Officer please confirm what separate consultation and consideration has taken place to allow the developer to move the current public footpath of scenic beauty under this proposal?
Alice Fraser Edwards, referring to Dulings and speaking on behalf of Ken Warren said that for years Mid Devon District Council have left Copplestone without any social amenities. How is Mid Devon going to deal with the problem? We have one of the highest concentrations of social and subsidised housing in a village environment in Mid Devon and we have already grown by 60% in the last 13 years. Another 100 houses are not sustainable and to do this please see the annotated ariel view of Copplestone, areas marked in green and yellow are all recent development. Could the Planning Officer please confirm who will be responsible to rectify the failure of the balance pools in the event of extreme weather conditions now expected when rainfall exceeds normal conditions?
Suzanne Lunn referring to Dulings said that the roads surrounding this development are extremely narrow with no pavement especially around Elston Lane and Bewsley Hill. How do you propose to ensure the safety of pedestrians and cyclists? The Mid Devon Local Plan which has been voted on and accepted by the Full Council does not include the land in question for this planning application as it does not form part of the permitted development land on the Local Plan. Does this mean your Planning Officer is going against the Full Council?
Michael Scott referring to Red Linhay said Greener for Life had been required to supply figures regarding noise levels emitting from the AD plant at Red Linhay when it is operational. They have not done so and all they have done is to include a couple of photographs showing the inside of a warehouse with white boxes and two people with their heads cropped out which could relate to almost anything. How can a case officer recommend approval of this application without such assurances as approval at this meeting would effectively give GFL a free hand in noise level emissions? GFL were required to move the second CHP which was installed without planning permission and at the last planning meeting concerning this issue an enforcement order was going to be issued to them. Have they been issued with an enforcement notice to do so and have they actually removed the second CHP unit?
Tony White, referring to Red Linhay said at the Planning meeting on July 6th 2016 this Committee resolved that the second 500kw CHP unit would not be approved and should be removed from the site. Furthermore it was resolved that an enforcement notice be served if the unit was not removed. As nothing has changed why has the Planning Officer disregarded this decision and now recommends approval? The Planning Officer has on several occasions assured local residents that all conditions will be actively enforced but to date we have seen little or no evidence of this. How can we have confidence in this process? We do however have every confidence that should a second CHP unit remain on site, it will be run as a 1 MW site not a 500kw as claimed.
Mrs Higgleston asked a further set of questions with regard to Dulings Farm – how do you propose to deal with the rare species on the prime meadow grass land to enable the creation of the balance pools and how will you ensure that the impact of this development is not detrimental to the environment? How can a Planning officer propose a recommendation for approval when an application has now been submitted for the old abattoir site? An application that has been actively encouraged by DCC, MDDC and local residents, an application that will provide facilities to the community?
Helen Olsen referring to Dulings said there has been nothing done to improve safety to pedestrians through Copplestone following the DCC meeting on 12/12/12 or following previous increases in housing in the village. How can we be sure that Copplestone will not be neglected again and what guarantees can you give that the increased number of cars driving up Bewsley Hill on the school run will not further put our children at risk. Also how will you ensure that approval for the development will not open up additional development on land further up detailed in blue on the supporting plan document? What do the Planning authority believe is the expected increase in peak rainfall intensity over the lifetime of the proposed development and can they guarantee in writing that the proposed mitigations are adequate to decrease flooding in the village rather than increase it? The track that the development has proposed to be built on has been used by the public without dispute by generations, one resident for 80 years, as an alternative right of way, what allowance has been made for the heritage of the village within the planning officers consideration of this application? If this committee sets a precedent for allowing development outside of the village boundary how far do you foresee the population growing by the 2021 census? As the developer is already attempting to purchase additional land in the geographical location of the application from the landowner so is it not the case that we are likely to see 200/400 more houses before the development is complete? Having read the National Planning Policy Framework it is clear that paragraph 14, that developments only be approved where the local benefits outweigh the adverse impacts, does not apply to this application. How could you therefore justify approval?