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.
Martin Fishleigh –The Chairman advised Mr Fishleigh to raise his objections when the application was heard.
Tony Price, referring to item 3 on the plans list (AD plant at Lords Meadow, Crediton) asked the planning officer to explain if they were going to allow an on farm Anaerobic Digester to be sited on Lords Meadow Industrial Site next to a thriving blue chip company manufacturing printed circuits when this should be on a farm? Could the planning officer make clear if they have employed any specialist consultant to advise of any effects of pollution to houses and factories close to this site? Should this plant be allowed what contingency plans do MDDC have to employ to ensure the plant is correctly monitored for the air pollution?
Cllr Lloyd Knight, Cullompton Town Council, referring to item 2 on the plans list (Siskin Chase, Cullompton) stated with the mistakes that had been made with the King Fisher Reach development Cullompton Town Council were very nervous about this development. We think that there is a major issue with the access at the development which is to use Siskin Chase as access to these 105 houses which does not have much room with parked cars either side of the cul de sac with a chicane as well which is a bit of a pinch point. We believe that Colebrooke Lane west of Swallow Way is going to be used for the construction vehicles. We are wondering if this could be a permanent access for the 105 houses as well as Siskin Chase. There is going to be a footpath anyway and it will be a standard of road for emergency vehicles so wouldn’t it make sense just to have it as a permanent access? We think that this would help with the idea of the rugby club who maybe moving and that being turned to housing developments and the suggested access west of Swallow Way/Colebrooke Lane would help with the traffic alleviation.
Peter Heal who runs a business on Lords Meadow Industrial estate referring to item 3 on the plans list (AD Plant at Lords Meadow, Crediton) had six questions for the planning officers. As I understand it, the feed stock is going to be 32,500 tonnes and that equates to 89 tonnes a day or 560 tonnes per week. I downloaded some information from BIOGas Info.co.uk, the official information portal on Anaerobic Digestion, and one of the statements about digestate is that 90-95% of what goes into the digester comes out a digestate.
1. How much digestate will there be per week?
2. How much is liquid and how much is solid?
3. The application transport statement says the export trips are 4 per week. Is this for dry matter digestate only?
4. Why is there no application for a holding tank for the liquid digestate at Downs Home Farm seeing as there is where it is going to go. How large will it be and will it be a sealed tank? I know it’s not part of this application but I assume they are going to need somewhere to tore it?
5. The transport statement says at point 4.10 that grass import would not involve trips on a highway as it will be directly accessed off the Downs Home Farm site but at point 4.17 it says that this route is weather dependant so how will the grass get there if the previous off road site not available for use?
6. Why does that transport statement say that grass silage will be at Downs Home Farm yet the odour management plan which was submitted on 5th April says that the grass silage will be stored on the AD plant site?
Jamie Byrom referring to item 2 on the plans list (Siskin Chase, Cullompton) and in particular to page 35 of the public report pack where there is a statement made in the officers report about the 5 year housing land Supply. The statements made there are that the Council is satisfied that it can currently demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply but unfortunately because there was an appeal in 2016 in Uffculme and policies which relate to housing delivery are still subject to the tilted balance that can kick in where the supply is not sufficient. Because it wasn’t sufficient in 2016 is that still being applied now even though your officers say they are satisfied that there is sufficient 5 year land supply. Clearly a difficult situation for everyone. I wanted to make members aware that in November of last year officers postponed decision making on several applications that they believed would be affected by this ambiguity over the 5 year housing land supply and they were waiting for information from the Government due in November, which then came out in February. When that data came out my understanding is, that this is grounds of the confidence that there is sufficient 5 year housing land supply that no 20% extra was needed to be added in the case of Mid Devon. If I am right about those facts then I am confused because by announcing that delay in November the officers explanation said that for some applications the absence of a demonstrable 5 year housing land supply is a material consideration with significant implications, it’s therefore prudent to wait for the publication, expected before the end of November and that appeared in February, and then test our review against those results for accuracy. I am puzzled by the officer report which is still applying a tilted balance and hasn’t postponed this one as it has done for others. In February officers produced for the inspection examination calculations which assured the inspector that housing land supply was secure was 4 months ago so the delay in finding this calculation properly and officially leaves residents in Cullompton and elsewhere at the mercy of a 2016 calculation that prejudices the case in favour of would be developers through so called tilted balance. I want it noted that it was in July 2018 that the last figures on 5 year housing land supply were put before this committee just before their decisions were made on that day so almost a full year has gone by.
1. Will officers confirm what the necessary official calculations on housing land supply will have been made by the committee when it meets in July 2019?
2. If you can’t give that confirmation please explain why that is?
3. Will the Councillors please consider this matter when you are discussing whether you are minded to refuse the Cullompton decision today I would hold that it cannot be unreasonable to do so in the knowledge that other sites have been postponed precisely because the 5 year land supply data had not made public?
Roger Harris again referring item 2 on the plans list (Siskin Chase, Cullompton) asked if the committee were aware that the road in Siskin Chase is at one stage only 3.55 meters wide? This is between the junctions of Starlings Roost and Linnet Dean which is not wide enough for two vehicles to pass. Permission to allow any higher flow of traffic who already uses this road will cause severe problems for road users and residents and I am mystified how the Highways department can justify putting 200 more extra vehicles a day now and maybe more in the future should there be future development through Siskin Chase and state that this is an acceptable means of access. Could someone please explain how this makes any sense in respect of road safety? I’m not sure what S106 agreements are but it appears to be document from items 1-10 of the proposal where money is allocated from this development to various departments and various people including £7500 per dwelling towards the town centre relief road. None of this appears to be of any financial benefit for Siskin Chase and I can’t see why if this development is built, and the development above at the rugby club, the money cannot be used put a road from Knowle Lane down through to Colebrook Lane. That money could easily be used to improve that road which could be developed and used by the whole of the estate on this development and a future one and it would be not need to put the residents of Siskin Chase through all this turmoil.