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:
Dr Whittlesey referring to Item 9 (Chettiscombe Estate) on the agenda asked the following questions:
Do you recall that in the AIDPD Inspector’s report of 2010, (3.48) he forecast that the adverse planning impact would fall on” flood risk, visual amenity and the wildlife and ancient hedgerows in West Manley Lane” We have come full circle.
You are aware of the numerous references to the national importance of the SSSI including input from Natural England, Tidcombe Lane Fen Society, Devon Wildlife Trust, Are you, like them, in agreement with all the measures that must be employed to protect not only the SSSI but also the Ailsa Brook and do you share our concern that even within this outline application the nature of these mitigating measures is not clear?
Do you agree with Natural England and Tidcombe Lane Fen Society that the complete safety of the water supply to the SSSI can only be achieved by not allowing development south of the lane?
Within this application, are the structures and long-term management of sewerage, flooding and foul water measures sufficiently outlined to be reliable?
Are you conversant with the Devon Wildlife Consultancy’s Hedgerow assessments of 2009 and 2013 and their classification of the entire length of hedge bank as important under the Hedgerow Regulations 1997, and that it currently serves as a wildlife connectivity corridor and safe environment for small mammal species and birds, some of which are conservation concern listed and are you in agreement with MDDC’s own concept of protection and enhancement of this hedgerow?
Are you aware that along its length this single track lane, currently used by some 12 private cars, service vehicles and farm machinery there are three right-angle bends, no footpath and no designated passing places and that the proposed development of 3 or 4 bedroomed houses north and south of the lane would not only destroy segments of the hedgerow but bring at least 30-40 additional cars into the mix, with resultant traffic chaos. Do you accept that new entrances separate from the proposed housing for both farm and vehicles servicing the attenuation ponds and sewerage machinery would need to be constructed
Did you know that an increasing numbers of people are using the lane for all manner of exercise; do you agree that if the result of the proposed housing development is a rise in traffic movements in the lane, with its lack of footpath and limited visibility there will be a significant effect on road safety issues?
Therefore, would you not agree that by retaining the fields south of the lane as public open spaces and green infrastructure options, this would fit with MDDC’s own stated environmentally friendly plans and sets the whole area in a more safe and rural setting.
Finally, in its somewhat selective précis of our four most recent responses, are you aware that the planning officers make several incorrect attributions?
So, would you to consider removing development south of West Manley Lane from this outline planning application, a 1% loss of housing stock in favour of access to a safe scenic and sustainable route for Tivertonians and their wildlife?
Mrs Coffey referring to Item 5 (Rowey Bungalow) on the agenda asked why the Head of Planning and Regeneration had not made it clear in the report that continual breaches had occurred on the site, there is a garden shed without planning permission, enforcement action was considered in June 2011 with regard to the property. In 2011 the land was in agricultural use and we had evidence that the grass had been cut 15 times. I also have evidence that the grass was cut 17 times last summer. The Planning Authority have asked for evidence, Mr Luxton has been keeping ducks and chickens on the land. In December 2009, Mr Luxton failed to respond to a Planning Contravention Notice but was not sent an enforcement letter. In 2011 the chicken house was put on the land used as a garden, this is not agricultural use; it is domesticated with a fence now erected. 17 trees have been planted since 2011. The Planning Department do not have the resources to monitor the land. There were 3 admitted breaches in 2011. He just needs more time to continue the breach to get a CLU and the report states you are doing nothing; he is extending the garden into the open countryside.
Mrs Cornes referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) asked: are Members aware that during February, the River Dalch at Nomansland suffered serious pollution. The Environment Agency investigated complaints and traced the pollution source to the silage clamp at Menchine Farm’s Anaerobic Digester plant where they established there had been , quote “ on site control failures”. Effluent had leaked downhill into the River Dalch and polluted it for a distance of two and a half kilometres. Silage effluent is understood to be toxic and extremely harmful to fish and other wildlife. There has been evidence of otters in this stretch of the river. No fish, no otters. The Environment Agency are taking enforcement action at Level 2, the second highest level on a four point scale.
Mr Smyth again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) stated that condition 7 of the approval for 14/00575/MFUL required that records should be kept of the vehicles entering and leaving the site and that the records include the size, type and load details, as well as the vehicles point of origin or destination and that these records shall be made available to the local planning authority on request. It is noted from the officer’s report that those records were requested from the applicant on 19 February. Has that request now been complied with, if not why, one wonders?
Mr Cornes again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) asked: are Members aware that the Appeal Inspector’s report (Officer report page 12) ties a restriction in to condition 7 that distributor farms for feedstock and digestate are located within 6km of Menchine Farm. Feedstocks have regularly been brought in from outside this radius, and very recently from a source in excess of 30km away. Tractor trailer units hauling feedstocks have been routed through Leat Street and Westexe, residential and shopping areas. Residents of Nomansland can assist the Council by providing information that this 6km restriction is being blatantly ignored.
Dr Bratby again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) highlighted the fact that the applicant has stated that due to advances in efficiency of the process, the output of the digester can be doubled from 500kW to 1MW. The applicant has already constructed a digester that is much larger than necessary to comply with his current permission. There has been no proven increase in efficiency and the doubling of the output can only be achieved by doubling the feedstock already being used or increasing the energy content by using waste such as animal by-products as proposed in the 2012 application. Are Members aware that if this application is permitted it will result in an AD plant similar to the one that was subsequently refused permission by Inspector Isobel McCretton, for reasons including unacceptable transport issues.
Mr Grant again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) stated that in this chamber in July 2014, the applicant gave assurances that he had no intention of increasing feedstock tonnages or electrical output and that the second CHP was for back up purposes only. Should not any assurances now given by the applicant or his agent be treated with extreme scepticism?
Mrs Collier again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) stated that the application shows 830 tonnes of slurry from Cleave Farm, Templeton operated by Reed Farms Ltd. This source of feedstock could well become unavailable. Are Members aware that Reed Farms Limited and an associated Reed family farming partnership are in administration? Have officers been advised of an alternative source to replace the slurry from Cleave Farm and if so is it within the 6km radius?
Mrs Bickerstaff again referring to Item 1 on the Plans List (Menchine Farm) asked whether Members are aware that a number of local residents have made complaints to the Environment Agency about odour, general machine noise as well as reversing bleepers. The bleepers have been clearly heard from Five Crosses, about 2km distance from Menchine Farm.
The Chairman read a letter from Dr Bell referring to Item 9 on the agenda:
1. The 3 month noise survey carried out to meet your conditions relating to planning permission given for the LILO application has been completed. I hope you will agree that the results indicate that further noise mitigation measures would be beneficial and the applicants should be asked to submit appropriate plans as required. Residents have a plan to achieve significant additional mitigation measures and this is supported by Neil Parish MP who has recommended it to our Secretary of State, DCC's Mr Whitton and MDDC's Mr Guscott.
Will you support residents by applying a condition to any permission for this present application to provide the further mitigation requested by them and Mr Parish.
2. No on-site air quality survey work has ever been carried out for any part of the proposed EUE site. It is not good enough for consultants to say that their assessment of air quality 'broadly' followed guidance by Environmental Protection UK and for MDDC to accept this.
Will you support residents by applying a condition to any permission for this present application that requires on-site air quality monitoring across the LILO area at least, for 3 month periods of time before, during and after construction works. Further noise surveys should also be applied for periods during and after construction otherwise, the recently completed noise survey results will not be of full value.
3. Item 13 of the S106 provisions listed in the report of the Head of Planning and Regeneration for this application requires the provision of a clause to provide district heating network infrastructure to serve the development in the event that an energy centre or district heating centre is provided for within the urban extension.
Does this mean that our County and local Councils aim to ensure that a waste to energy plant will be located in Tiverton?
The Chairman indicated at this point that the above questions would be answered during discussions on the applications.
Mrs Quick referring to Item 9 on the agenda stated that she had concerns for the future as at the August Planning Committee, the motion was altered at the last moment with the new motion being unclear. The Planning Committee is a very important committee, you make decisions that affect people for years, what you decide today will affect people for 50 to 100 years, your responsibility is enormous. May I be assured that today no motion tampering will take place and that motion tampering will be disallowed in the future; we all require your assurances.
Mr Dennis referring to Item 2 on the Plans List (Mid Devon Business Park) asked if a possible condition would be added to the decision to state that if the application was approved it could not be followed by housing on the site. The Highway Authority has stated that there is no need to consider road safety. The site is on the edge of the village, there are a large number of houses near the site between the estates and the proposed store, and there is also a 5 spur roundabout which accommodates 18 tonne vehicles. Residents have to negotiate the roundabout and roads on the way to the store, some roads are narrow and I am concerned that we are putting people at risk. Supermarkets that have been built have resulted in major road layouts. There are safety issues on this site please have a site visit to see these issues.
The Area Planning Officer stated that with regard to a condition regarding housing, this could not be imposed and any proposal would require a separate application. South View Road was narrow but could accommodate pedestrians as each arm of the roundabout had pedestrian islands. The update sheet gave details of the response of the Highway Authority regarding the pedestrian issues.