Return to Home Page
A member of the congregation at St Stephen's, North Mundham took me to one side as I entered the church and told me about a wind farm he had seen in Pembrokeshire on holiday, absolutely quiet 24/7, no pollution, no smell etc. Why not this type of installation at Runcton instead of an anaerobic digester? Why not indeed. Probably enough wind and we would get used to the sails, I guess.
The interesting point about this conversation is that it shows how deep within the whole community concern about this application has reached.
Publication of the minutes of the June 30 DC South meeting that opposed the application. The wording of the objection is very specific:
'1. The district planning authority considers the proposal to be an industrial process which is fundamentally inappropriate land use in the open countryside. The proposal conflicts with Local Plan policy RE11A which is designed to protect horticulture development areas from development other than commercial horticulture. The district planning authority does not accept that the proposal is a commercial horticulture use complying with policy RE11A.
'2. The district planning authority has serious concerns about the likely impact of the proposal in terms of noise, odour and landscape and wishes to object on these grounds unless West Sussex County Council is fully satisfied on these matters.'
The first objection is strong, the second, rather watered down by its qualification. But overall this is clear notice to County that the district strongly objects to the application. It provides a good base on which to build our case for the September 28 County planning committee meeting.
On return from holiday took a call and email from Ashmarden Farms to the effect that while visiting a property in the area of the Sefters Farm (Barfoots of Botley, Pagham) and its AD plant they noticed unacceptable odour and noise and suggested we get members to visit for themselves. We may indeed want to capitalise on this ahead of the County planning meeting in September.
Development Control (South) Committee reject unanimously officers' recommendation not to object to the application. CDC is only a consultee on this application that will be decided by County on September 28. However some account must be taken of members strong opposition.
I was not present being away on holiday but before leaving I wrote a closely argued letter to all 16 members of the committee that I know some found helpful in assessing the application. In the letter I declared a prejudicial interest.
I understand that non compliance with planning policy was regarded as the main reason to object.
Click here to return to the top of the page.
At long last I lodge my own letter of objection with County. See letter to county. Very similar to the one lodged with District. In both cases I have centred on the visual impact but not before giving very careful consideration to other aspects such as planning policy, noise, odour and traffic. Other letters of objection have dealt fully with those factors. It has taken me a while to settle for this line of argument but I think it is a powerful one. Whatever its merits as a green energy plant, it would be really crass to allow a development of this kind on that site.
Oving Parish Council has special meeting to review the AD application in its revised form. A typically efficiently conducted meeting heard presentations from residents including from North Mundham and briefly decided not much had changed since its objection to the first version of the application. A new variant on the first objection was the potential impact of gas gun usage to ward off rooks that are particularly attracted to maize. We get plenty of gas gun intrusion as it is. The parish council's letter of objection is one of the best I have seen in terms of content and impact.
Chichester Observer gives substantial space to the issue in editorial and letters including a cartoon.
Development Control (South) will consider Langmead Farms's application for an anaerobic digester at Runcton (CDC reference: O/10/02230/CMA) as part of its agenda on Wednesday June 30, 2010. I will be away that day and will not speak at the committee. But I have lodged an objection largely confined to the visual impact published on the CDC website. See New Objection.
Received noise report from The Building Centre on AD plant at Sutton. Also CDC's assessment of Langmead Farms's. Need to study both but at first sight neither give much cause for concern.
Started taking a closer look at the noise report attached to the new application submission. In the previous week had asked for CDC environmental health officer's assessment. That assessment would be required in any case as part of officer review of the application. Also consulted the Building Centre in London and the Institute of Acoustics on the availability of other noise reports on AD plants and consultants we might commission for an independent assessment.
......................................................................................................................................................
Rather striking banner erected at Marsh Farm House 'Say no to industrial anaerobic digester here'.
North Mundham Parish Council repeats its objection to the plant despite a number of changes in the configuration. Its reasons are much as before, non compliance with HDA planning policy, traffic movements, noise, smell etc. It was agreed by majority vote not to suggest conditions in the event of the application receiving approval.
The clerk announced that the consultation deadline had been extended to June 24 as a result of delayed publication of the application in the Observer.
................................................................................................................................................
Started working on personal representation but will need first to take closer look at planning policy issues.
Click here to return to the top of the page.
Langmead Farms withdraw original application and submit a new one incorporating changes we were briefed about on April 16. District Council application number O/10/02230/CMA; County application number WSCC/061/10/NM. Representations for WSCC/088/09/NM will not be carried forward. Consultation deadline June 10, 2010.
Called County Planning to find out if Langmead Farms had submitted their amendments to the planning application. Nothing yet I was told and the earliest committee meeting it will be eligible for is July 27. What is holding them up? Not having second thoughts surely?
Independent Counsel rules that the application should be determined by County and not the district. I had challenged the competence of County do so on the grounds that this will be a bio energy plant not a waste plant. But precedent indicated that if an application has a proportion of its activity that comes within the County's purview then it should be for County to determine but with 'great attention' being given to the District's recommendation. I am not sure this qualification is worth much. Sounds like a courtesy only. I was disappointed at the outcome but it was worth the challenge.
Briefing by Langmead Farms to parish councils and district and county councillors on amendments to their application. The changes will result in smaller footprint reduced by one hectare, resulting from reduction of digester towers in their number by two (and in their height by four metres) and elimination of lagoon in favour of pumping liquid digestate directly to reservoir in Lagness. Also to improve crop rotation and help spread vehicle movements, green wheat harvested in July will be added to maize and fruit/vegetable trimmings as feedstock.
Despite these undoubted improvements it will still be visually intrusive for many years and in my view continues to violate planning policy on horticultural development areas.
We understand these amendments will be submitted in next two weeks.
Full house MARRA AGM dominated by presentations and discussion on AD plant led by chairman with contributions from myself and another member of AD Campaign Group. Strong response to 'fighting fund appeal' .
Learnt from County that Langmead Farms are likely to submit their amendments in the next two weeks or so. When they do, there will be a second round of consultation when all representees, individual residents, parish councils, County Highways, the EA etc will be invited to review their submissions and make any changes in the light of the amendments.
On the matter of which authority should deal with this application, District and County have agreed to pay jointly for the matter to be referred to independent counsel. While I would have liked the case which I raised with the District Chief Executive to be decided in favour of District I am pleased that it is going to be decided on this basis. It's a measure of the seriousness which each authority is attaching to this application.
One of the members of the campaign team produced a scale drawing showing the dimensions of the proposed plant towers against typical houses in the village and St Giles church. It speaks volumes for the visual intrusiveness of this scheme.
Made incognito visit to Crouchland Farm, Ifold, that has a one megawatt AD plant fed from 750 cows' slurry that opened in November 2009. Wanted to see another plant but in the UK. What was noticeable was that the digesters were hardly discernible until up close as they were part of a large farm complex with large cattle sheds, nestling in among trees. Just two of them and only 12 metres to ridge I would estimate. Hardly comparable to the five monsters planned for our open plain. Some smell, typical farm smell, not much. Quite a lot of teleloader noise from 200 yards but not sure if it would have been continuous or periodic. Have booked an inside visit once the owner throws open the gates to visitors.
Another batch of good, thoughtful letters of objection posted today.
AD Campaign Group set up as a formal group with the objective of opposing the proposed AD Plant at Runcton, under chairmanship of chairman of MARRA.
Over 100 letters of objection submitted to County though officers doubt that sheer numbers will carry much weight in committee. Perhaps not but they represent a highly antagonistic community. Someone should take notice.
Major coverage on letters page of Observer including one of substance that takes Langmead Farms spokesman to task in respect of some of his comments quoted in Observer of February 4 and really makes all the points needed to refute the application. I had the correction to the output of a one megawatt digester published. Let's hope no one else quotes 20,000.
Still no word of amendments from Langmead Farms. Too late now for March 16 committee meeting. April 13 is date of next one.
Residents meet County planning officer to voice concerns
Click here to return to the top of the page.
Residents meet constituency MP who gives them a fair hearing, while confirming that no Westminster member can get directly involved in matters that are the responsibility of local government.
Letter in the Observer, delighted from Bosham, on an anaerobic digestion plant that will produce power for 20,000 homes. Errors of this kind can run and run. Langmeads who were the source for the error when the AD plant was first reported on December 10, should have corrected it then. I will send off a correction which I hope will be published.
Calls to officers at County and District suggest that time is running out for Langmeads to get their amendments in in time for the March 3 (District) and March 16 (County) committees.
Received confirmation from the Chartered Institute of Waste Management that a one megawatt anaerobic digester would provide sufficient power for about 2,000 houses.
Click here to return to the top of the page.
Letters beginning to pour in on the county website, no doubt in response to MARRA circular.
Article in Chichester Observer reporting resident concerns and containing the inaccuracies of the first report in December, namely that the feedstock is waste and that the power will suffice for 2200 homes. More like 2,000. But it will raise the profile.
Talked to NFU chief renewable and climate change adviser who told me about a one megawatt AD plant at Billingshurst recently commissioned that might be willing to receive a visit. If a visit could be arranged and not just for me, it could be useful to compare with what is proposed here. I emailed him a description of the Runcton plans and resident concerns.
Odour. The SEEDA adviser I consulted on December 21, writes that because the digestion process is sealed the only possible source of odour is from the unloading process (which includes the input process to the feed hoppers) not from the operation. Planners at a meeting he attended last week said that it is generally accepted that there may need to be in some circumstances the provision of an 'air controlled unloading environment'. This can, he goes on to say, if planned and built thoughtfully also provide an added benefit of noise reduction at unloading.
I will pass this on to CDC. If we have to have the plant, it would be a valuable means of mitigation. Of course it would cost.
Wrote to County Planning quoting Dr Lukehurst on there being over 1,000 of vehicle movements likely in September to transport the maize to the clamp that is in direct conflict with November 4, 2009 Planning Statement that talks about an average of three vehicle movements a day with only one using the public highway. I asked that this figure be referred back to the applicant for confirmation. If confirmed I requested that the Local Development Division of WSCC reassess the impact on the highway. It may well turn out not to be a problem but it needs to be reviewed. This is but one example of many where the Planning Statement and Design Access Statement are seriously misleading and incomplete.
Clarion call from MARRA (Mundham and Runcton Residents Association) in a flyer distributed to all residents inviting them to take note of plans for an AD plant and submit their comments/ objections to County planning by February 19. MARRA is strongly opposed to the application, claiming that it 'is an outrageous contravention of the principles of the horticultural development area'.
Click here to return to the top of the page.