To consider a briefing paper from the Public Health and Professional Services Manager and the Head of Planning and Regeneration with regard to Cleave Farm and Crossparks, Templeton.
Minutes:
Following a question, asked by Miss Coffin during Public Question Time at the previous meeting, the Committee had before it and NOTED a report * from the Public Health Manager regarding issues relating to Cleave Farm and Crossparks at Templeton.
The Public Health Manager explained that the report was necessarily detailed in response to a range of points and assertions raised by Miss Coffin regarding investigations made by the Environmental Health team (Public Health Services) at Templeton. Specifically, in respect of potential nuisances and impact upon a private drinking water supply arising from agricultural, farm storage and spreading activities at Cleave Farm and Crossparks.
The officer explained that Environmental Health were the enforcing authority for Statutory Nuisance legislation under the Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990. These were essentially reactive powers to investigate complaints of odour, noise, dust and other nuisances. Where a nuisance was proven there were related powers to serve abatement notices requiring action to cease the nuisance and ultimately prosecute in the event of non-compliance.
In order for a statutory nuisance to exist, the nuisance in question must be unlawful (i.e. have no legal authority to occur) and be prejudicial to health or result in an unreasonable interference in another person’s use of their land or reduction in amenity or environmental quality. The context required there to be something of a public health element in the consequences of the nuisance.
The law did not make any separate definition of ‘rural’ or ‘urban’ nuisance. These were terms referenced by Miss Coffin at the last meeting; however in law a nuisance was a nuisance irrespective of the location. The combination of factors influencing whether a nuisance existed were very much specific to each individual case.
The officer explained that while the burden of proof was based on ‘balance of probability’ rather than ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ this was in part because there was no legal threshold or limit of dust, noise or odour that would give rise to a nuisance in every location and circumstance. Nonetheless, the EPA 1990 was still criminal legislation and subject to the scrutiny of a criminal court in respect of any appeal regarding the service of an abatement notice or subsequent prosecutions for alleged breaches of a notice.
He further explained that the response to issues at Cleave Farm and Crossparks could not be considered insignificant and had in fact been heavily weighted in comparison to resources being allocated elsewhere. The terms of legal obligations were set out within the report and required that steps were taken that were reasonably, practicable, a measure that had been met, and arguably exceeded, in respect of this investigation. The reality was that it was becoming increasing difficult to sustain an above-and-beyond response against the needs of other service priorities and equally important complex cases elsewhere in the district. It was agreed that the residents of Templeton must be treated equally, but by the same token the same service must be provided to all residents district-wide.
Consideration was given to:
· The complexities of proving statutory nuisance;
· The lack of a definitive link between the pit at Crossparks and the symptoms described by residents;
· The lack of proof that the pit was prejudicial to health;
· Consultation with Public Health who had experts in chemical hazards;
· The fact that the gas concerned would be smelt at low level;
· Where there was evidence to do so action had been taken but in the case of the gas there was no clear link;
· The Fire Service had undertaken monitoring but had not found significant levels of gas;
· The most recent contact with Public Health had been on the 3rd March 2017;
· Covering the pit and how this could reduce odour;
· The different types of gases that could be found and those that were likely to be found in a slurry pit;
· Investigations regarding material that had gone into the pit.
Cllr R L Stanley reported that he had been involved in discussions regarding this matter since it had started, initially concerning transport and how the plant was operated and more lately regarding health matters. He had received numerous reports of medical conditions, had been advised of stock death and of a dog that was found to have problems with its blood count.
The Head of Planning and Regeneration informed the Committee that Mid Devon was not the Waste Planning Authority but that the service had been in liaison with Devon County Council and the Environment Agency with regard to whether or not the site was being used as a waste transfer station. They had concluded that the digestate being delivered to the site was not waste and therefore there was no requirement for planning permission.
It was RESOLVED that a follow up report be prepared for the next meeting of the Committee.
(Proposed by Cllr Mrs J Roach and seconded by Cllr F J Rosamond)
Note: - Report * previously circulated and attached to Minutes.
Supporting documents: