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:
Referring to item 8 (Crossparks) on the agenda Mrs Rowcliffe said we, the affected residents, had a meeting last week with the officers. The report written by Dr Louise Uffiindell flagged the presence of sulphur dioxide in Mike Hill's house, Palm Springs. Mr Pritchard categorically refused to consider the testing of SO2 in the long term follow up tests. Perhaps the Scrutiny Committee will be able to ask for justification of this stance. In any case it is the officer’s duty to declare a statutory nuisance. Enough is enough, the fumes are excessive. They affect our health and are an unacceptable interference with our existence in our properties around the pit.
Mrs Bickerstaff, also referring to item 8 on the agenda, informed the Committee that the officers said our borehole water failed tests because our ducks are splodging through 47 metres of soil. Surely they cannot be serious. Can the officers be asked for a better solution, pollution maybe? Is slurry leaking into the ground water? The bottom of the pit is not concrete, it was just excavated out of the subsoil. The stream by the pit has similar chemicals to those inside the pits Environment Agency sample. Could the pipe line be leaking? Do phenols, present in all samples, rot the plastic pipes of the pipeline? The Faulkner’s water tested at the same time had coliform level greater than 300. But how much greater than? Their own private water test at the same time revealed 1050. Their analyst could not understand why the level had increased by so much in just 2 years, unless the pollution was from an outside source. Can the Committee ask the officers why the readings are so bad and abnormal? Please declare a statutory nuisance on the pit and digestate.
Mr Leaming, referring to item 8 on the agenda asked are the committee aware that Templeton Parish Council is trying to obtain a definitive position regarding the Crossparks pit? The Parish Council has been repeatedly asked about inconsistences in pit treatment by the authorities and parishioners feel they don’t have the same level of protection as other locations. For example, the enforcement notices for Pulsards and Coleford pits also states ‘the Officers quantified the intended storage of digestate in an already dug slurry pit (no planning permission) as a waste operation requiring a Transfer Operators Licence.’ Crossparks has not been asked to apply for such a licence. Further, ‘Officers consider this is justified in order to protect the amenity and living conditions of nearby residential properties’. Templeton has residential properties closer than either of these enforced sites. There are some inconsistencies. As a Parish Council, we await definitive guidance. As a finale, we now have a planning condition attached to an application of Crossparks to store potentially flammable materials even closer to residential property.
Referring to item 8 on the agenda Mrs Rose said that from the Scrutiny Committees point of view, complaints of nuisance at Crossparks have been ongoing since 2012 regarding noise, odour and flies, so this isn’t a recent thing. Environmental Health has had plenty of opportunities but has let us down badly. Back then it was all slurry related issues from his mega dairy of 3000 cows.
Moving on to now and since Scrutiny’s involvement Environmental Health do seem to be listening finally and have suggested they look at our medical records. My concern is this will take years to prove anything and as Pete Smith from Public Health told me 4 years ago, proving anything via ill health is very difficult and going for statutory nuisance is the only way to move forward.
I am unable to detect or smell these poisonous gases that we’re being exposed to from digestate and have no idea what it’s doing to my health but my garden is living proof and it has severely damaged plants. Plants don’t lie. This began in January this year and we are nowhere near to resolving it, this problem isn’t going away and we will not give up fighting for our rights to be forced to move house because we can no longer live there. We need your help, we need action now. Mrs Rose left some plant samples.
Referring to item 8 on the agenda, Mr Faulkner said that I asked Stephen Walford what is in the pit that is causing our distressing symptoms. After I had repeated the question several times he tetchily replied that I should just have to wait for Environmental Health to complete their investigations into the pit and its contents. This pit contains in the region of a million cubic feet of bubbling chemicals, it takes 39 articulated lorries and their attendant tankers to fill it. That is a large test tube of unknown reagents about which Mr Walford is waiting for an Environmental Health report. Environmental Health did commission official tests between 3 May and 17 May. On the first day 5 slurry kats, large industrial slurry tankers, quickly sucked out the last remaining artics worth of digestate/slurry. The pit was then virtually empty. During the testing fortnight there were no movements; neither in nor out. The fissured tongues of the nearby neighbours started healing. However, the residents still complained as the fumes were now emanating from the heavily spread fields, as indicated in their logs with details of wind direction. Previously Mr Newcombe had insisted that whilst the testing took place the pit was operating in its normal cycle. We have informed him that this was not the case. Perhaps the Committee will be able to clarify that during the testing two weeks the pit was empty and inactive and therefore not emitting gases at the same rate as normal.
You may also be able to question the officers whether Dr Louise Uffindell and Pete Smith were told of this inactivity and the emptiness of the pit. Their report could and should be rewritten in the light of this knowledge. Even so, SO2 and Hydrocarbons have been identified as chemicals present causing concerns. The statutory nuisance has yet to be declared. The gases emanating from the pit are spreading all over the countryside, killing the trees and plants, affecting our health and depriving us of our rights of simple enjoyment of our properties. Alors, quelle espece de faisances est ceux ci: c’est vraiment incroyable! I am sure the Committee can persuade the officers to declare a statutory nuisance against the pit and the spreading of digestate.
Mrs Faulkner, also referring to item 8 on the agenda, said that as you know the Environment Agency did a chemical test of the pit. It showed phenols at 23ppm. We also did a test of our bedroom which had a benzene ring compound TVL 5ppm and testing Mr Hill’s house and Mr and Mrs Rose’s houses which had phenols at different qualities also. Did we all have the same spray of aerosols as was suggested by Mr Newcombe? Was it far more possible that the pit was bubbling out hydrogen sulphide and sulphur dioxide and along with it other organic chemicals like phenols? I did ask a professional chemist and he said that this was possible. There are many other matching volatile organic chemicals on all the lists. There are slight variations of chemicals in the tests as they were not all done at the same time but as you know the digestate comes from many different AD’s. Environmental Health are fully aware. They met and discussed it with Public Health England and Dr Virginia Pearson in April. Councillors Stanley and Moore asked to attend but they were refused. Our bedroom showed we had 1500ppm of phenoxyacetic acid in it, they said it was just a food preservative. But phenoxyacetic is linked to Agent Orange a broad leaf weed killer, hence our plants are dying and many showing discoloration. Environmental Health are negligent in not performing their duty and declaring a statutory nuisance. They have had evidence, they have ignored it.
The Chairman indicated that questions raised would be given due consideration from the Committee and thanked the public for their contribution.