7 thoughts on “Draft Minutes – 17th July 2018”

  1. Regarding the proposed statement of opposition to the polytunnel application in the draft minutes of the meeting on 17th July, I question whether it is right or necessary at this stage to dilute OPGPC and public objection to this application and the large impact it will have, with relatively minor mitigation proposals.

  2. The statement in the draft Minutes of the meeting on 17th July that ‘as a document, the NDP cannot be used against the application as it was to do with dwellings’ is incorrect. As participants in most NDP SG meetings and supporters of the process, we are surprised at this misleading statement. The NDP is not only to do with dwellings and so this cannot be a reason. The HC NDP Guidelines (eg Guidance Note 2) also make it clear that NDPs are not restricted to dwellings.
    Section 5.1 of the NDP document refers to polytunnels not being favoured. The question asked in the Residents’ Survey (Q11: ‘What types of economic development should the Plan encourage?’ Polytunnels?) is testament itself to the issue being relevant and the result clearly supports a case against the application:
    Polytunnels: yes – 17 10%; no – 105 62%; don’t know – 28 17%
    The NDP document addresses Economic and Social development in the OPG, making reference to Core Strategy policies and development of Policy OPG7 which indicates that proposals should not be supported if they are not of a ‘scale, type and nature appropriate to their countryside location’. That this policy has not been satisfied by the application appears to be inherent in the stated reasons for OPGPC objecting to the application (and is clearly the opinion in many representations to HC.) .
    Consequently, we think that the OPGPC reasons for objecting to the application should include: ‘the application is not in accordance with the NDP.’

  3. Oh dear,dear, dear. Are you councillors that short sighted and ignorant to the wildlife that surrounds you. Do you really believe that sticking up a few bird boxes is the answer. Our wildlife both flora and fauna needs protection, it needs its natural habitat. Curlews and Skylarks don’t nest in boxes, they are ground nesting birds and any hope of the Lapwing returning no chance. The fields are home for voles and mice the staple diet of Owls, let’s drive them away too. For as long as I can remember the fields were used for stock and proper orchards not like the so called orchards out there now filled with posts and hundreds of meters of wire and sprayed with God knows what every other week. We don’t know what species of plant may be lying dormant in the ground but one thing is certain if these industrial farmers have their way it will be gone forever. So man up, you have a responsibility to your parishioners and the environment, some of us are doing all we can to stop this you should be doing the same.

  4. The statement that the parish council intends to submit does not reflect the depth of concern and strength of opposition voiced by residents at the meeting on 17th July. Many local people feel so strongly that they have even made a financial contribution to fight this application.

    In the light of that, I would request the the council reconsiders their statement before submitting it to the planning department. The follow concerns were minuted but have not been included in the statement:

    the claim by the applicant that it will be of economic benefit
    water management concerns
    the effect of 360 migrant workers
    specific concerns about light and noise pollution
    scale and impact

    Mitigating factors are, to be frank, laughable, when considered in the light of the scale of this proposal and the impact it would have, should it go ahead :

    a few more trees
    additional bird nesting boxes
    native species of bees introduced
    wider entrance splays
    limitations of working hours (only at the packing plant)
    the need for enforcement of codes of conduct

    These mitigating factors are so insignificant as to be irrelevant.

    I also note that the letter from Cliff Penny has not been entered in the minutes: this recommended that the council funds a professional consultancy, but there was no discussion about this course of action, and no decision was taken at the meeting.

    After the relief we felt at the meeting on Tuesday when actually we thought the council back the community, this statement is complete disappointment. It’s weak and apologetic, and doesn’t present the case against this development at all.

    It is not the voice of the community that you are supposed to represent.
    Please reconsider.

  5. Reference to the Draft Minutes – 17th July 2018.

    I object to the Parish Council making suggestions within Section 6 to ‘soften’ the strongly felt rejection by the local community around Ocle Pychard for the Polytunnel planning application…. Additional tree lines, bird boxes and limitations on working hours…

    The community rejected this outright at the parish council meeting last week and the parish council agreed to support the rejection, yet it comes across in the draft minutes that if the planning applicant plants more trees and puts up additional nest boxes etcetera the application will become more palatable and acceptable to the local populace….. it will not.

    As these are ‘draft’ minutes and have not been ‘signed off’ as final, can you kindly consider removing the ‘Suggestions’ from the minutes as it does not reflect the wishes of your parishioners.

    Kind regards,

    Phil Burden

  6. Having read the minutes of the recent meeting dated 17 July (at which I was present) I am very disappointed to learn that the objections the Parish Council (PC) have decided to carry forward do not reflect accurately enough the discussions held at the meeting with the parishioners.

    The PC has represented those present at the meeting by suggesting a few bird boxes and trees will mitigate 91 acres of plastic. I don’t remember these suggestions being discussed, I do not feel they reflect my opinion on the application, and I do not believe the objections to the application would be addressed by such meagre and appeasing suggestions.

    I was hoping for a far more robust response to HC, which more truly reflects the points raised by the parishioners at the meeting. I note from the minutes that the PC have already drafted their ‘losing speech’ to HC, and state they ‘remain concerned…’ I would offer the suggestion that there is not ‘concern’ in my mind; there is ‘objection’. In planning approval terms, there is an enormous difference.

  7. Please see below my message to the Case Officer for the Ocle Pychard Polytunnel planning application (P182191) which addresses my concern about suggested underestimation of the impact of this development, but also identifies classification of such developments and reinforces our view, which is given above, that the development is not consistent with the NDP.

    Dear Ms Jenman,

    In the Landscaping Comments on the above planning application, E Duberley ‘would not conclude that the impact is significant’, partly on the basis that ‘this type of development can be removed’.

    I think this view should not contribute to the planning decision, because the proposed structures have to be treated as buildings, given their continuous and long term fixed presence, size and burden of demolition.

    Also, accordingly, it seems self evident that the impact is significant.

    Best regards

    Alan Debenham
    Parishioner of Ocle Pychard Group.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *