Agenda item

Two public questions had been received:

1.    Question received from a member of the public

The stated objectives for the Devon Countryside Access Forum are to improve public access to land for the purposes of open air recreation and enjoyment.

Devon County Council’s Green Infrastructure Strategy highlights the special qualities, distinctive character and diversity of Devon’s landscapes, which is highly valued by those who live within and visit the county. One of its key guiding principles is:

“To protect, manage and plan an attractive green infrastructure network that conserves and enhances access to and enjoyment of valued landscapes for recreation, education and lifelong learning”.

The proposed landfill site at Brenton Road sits in an Area of Great Landscape Value and should therefore be protected. Siting large earth bunds next to public footpaths and rights of way will destroy views currently enjoyed by walkers. Add to that, the noise generated by plant and vehicle movements on the site will eliminate the existing tranquility.

BT Jenkins have uploaded documents in support of their application.

When the revised planning application ( DCC /4337/2023), despite a second attempt at mitigation, is clearly in contravention of these stated objectives, how can approval for a landfill site operating for a minimum of 10 years be considered in any form?

2.    Question received from John Nuttall

As a group of concerned local residents who all enjoy the local PRoWs in the area of the proposed landfill site consisting of 3 footpaths:

·         Shillingford St George 14

·         Kenn 54

·         Kenn 16

·         1 Bridleway, Shillingford St George 19

·         Shillingford Lane, which is mostly used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists, and little used by motor vehicles

·         Sampsons Hill unsurfaced county road

It is our understanding that the forum is promoting improvements to and the enjoyment of PRoWs.  We are worried about the use of heavy machinery and a recycling plant, all of which will create noise and dust which affect all of the above paths, as well as spoiling the fabulous views.

What can you do to help maintain this rural area and prevent it becoming an industrial site for at least the next 10 years?

Sarah Slade and the Forum Officer had visited the site.  This followed an earlier visit accompanied by Jo Burgess.  Some initial reflections on the planning application had been sent to members and were discussed.  These focussed on:

·         The bunds designed to reduce noise and dust would impact on the experience of using the public rights of way.

·         Kenn footpath 16 would be gated where it crossed the site entrance road, now located to the south.  The onus was on access users to cross safely rather than on the site operators to ensure vulnerable users were protected.

·         Alongside Kenn footpath 54, it was proposed to offset a fence 4 m from the centre of the hedge.  This was not considered adequate due to potential vegetation growth and the width of the hedge.

·         Use of Shillingford Lane by access users had not been considered in creating the throughway to the upper landfill fields.

·         Long views across the area would be impacted by bunds and subsequently by high hedges after restoration.

Additional points were raised.  The consultants’ reports included their judgements about mitigation and the impact of lorry movements.  The proposed movements were 150-200 per day with working times from 7.00 a.m. to 6.00 p.m. daily and Saturdays from 7.00 a.m. to 1.00 p.m.  These working times gave little opportunity for people to enjoy the PRoW at times of quiet. It was suggested a planning condition could be justified to limit hours of operation on the site. 

The operating hours also had an impact on safety of the crossing if people were using the public right of way at dusk.

Whilst any Environment Impact Assessment took account of dust and noise these could still impact on access users, even if at legal levels.  This was difficult to monitor. There were statutory controls on crusher noise levels.

It was possible there could be mud and debris if wheels were not adequately cleaned.

The Phase 3 drawing referred to a cow track.  It was not clear how this related to the adjacent public right of way and what the surfacing would be.  Moving the fence to the north of the bund by the office and recycling centre was suggested.

Richard Walton, Public Rights of Way and Country Parks manager, reminded the Forum that the landowner/occupier does not have the right to put gates up on the public right of way.  This could potentially be deemed an obstruction. Concern was raised by members as to whether Equality Act breaches might also be an issue.

The proximity of the public rights of way in the landfill area to new housing developments around the A379 meant it was likely PRoW would be more used and valued.

It was unclear whether the site operator or the PRoW team would bear the additional costs of vegetation clearance on public rights of way and vegetation growing out from bunds.

Members of the public present gave clarification on some points.  They also mentioned that the new scheme was more disruptive as more public rights of way were impacted for the duration of the landfill operation. Shillingford Lane was used for recreational access.  The bunds would be there for ten years and might potentially slip. Concern was expressed about cyclists using the Brenton Road overbridge or travelling across the entrance to the A379.  The office and recycling area was large and would have crushers working with piles of waste.  Bulldozers would be working across the landfill area.

A response to the planning application would be drafted and circulated for approval.

Action:  Forum Officer.