Trafford biomass plant gets the green light on appeal

Copied from Planning Portal

The highlighted paragraph, is of particular relevance to the current PREL application at Sutton Bridge for a biomass power station on Wingland site.

Trafford biomass plant gets the green light on appeal

Peel Energy has won its recovered appeal over its proposed 20 megawatt biomass power station earmarked for a site south of the Manchester Ship Canal at Davyhulme in Trafford, Greater Manchester.

The scheme – the Barton Renewable Energy Plant – was opposed by Trafford Council, many local resents as well as environmental groups.

However, Communities Secretary Eric Pickles has allowed the appeal, acting on the recommendations of the inspector who held a public inquiry last November.

The Secretary of State agreed with the inspector that there was “a pressing national need for the development of renewable energy capacity”.

The decision letter said the SoS had taken account of the particular concerns which have arisen over the project but added “he sees no reason to disagree with the inspector’s conclusion that these concerns are not supported by any substantial evidence of any actual harm to health”.

Pickles added: “It is clear that in considering planning applications for waste management facilities, waste planning authorities should concern themselves with implementing the strategy for the development plan and not with the control of processes which are a matter for the pollution control authorities.

“The Secretary of State has attributed some weight to the strength of local feeling against the proposal but he agrees with the Inspector that it remains a fact that an Environmental Permit has been issued and that he must proceed on the assumption that the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced”.

The letter went on to conclude: “Like the inspector, the Secretary of State considers that the perception of harm on the part of a large section of the local population does not outweigh the presumption in favour of granting permission for development which accords with the development plan”.

Roger Milne – 23 May 2013

Letter to local newspaper – PREL, Sutton Bridge

Dear sir,

With regards to the PREL planning application at Sutton Bridge. This application was not for an incinerator. An incinerator has only one purpose, to burn waste material. The Sutton Bridge installation will burn wood that has not been used for any other purpose. Wood is being burnt in order to produce electricity, not to dispose of it.

At the first meeting, I did not suggest that residents should have made clear that they did not want an incinerator, so no previous crystal ball gazing was required. My comments related to objections regarding increased traffic. I suggested that if residents had concerns about the Wingland site generating more traffic, these should have been raised when the site was allocated for employment use, some 10 years ago.

Some committee members suggested that they did not understand every aspect of the background information provided. I don’t feel that this undermined their ability to determine the application. Much of this information dealt with matters that were outside of the immediate planning issues and was therefore not vital to the reaching of a sound decision.

Some parties have suggested that SHDC will gain financially from this application. The district council does not own any land, or have any other financial interest in the Wingland site.

I’m mystified by the accusation that the deferment was a ruse. A discounted electricity supply, for residents, mentioned at public meetings, was referred to in lobbying letters and emails I received. Details were not provided to the committee at the first meeting. I felt it was therefore prudent to ensure that the details of this promise were clearly understood and even more importantly, the promise delivered.

Finally, the Environment Agency will be responsible for issuing the operating licence for this wood burning power station and air quality monitoring. Anybody with concerns regarding emissions from this process, should ensure that these concerns are submitted to the EA.

Councillor Roger Gambba-Jones
Chairman, Planning Committee
South Holland District Council

Attack! Attack! Attack!

In the interests of transparency and because I doubt very much that the local newspaper will print such a personal attack on an individual, I thought readers might be interested to see what those of us who are no better than volunteer scout masters, sometimes have to contend with.

09 May 2013
Re- The Proposed Incinerator development at Wingland/ Sutton Bridge

Mr Gambba – Jones,

I listened to the deliberations at the meeting held 17th April with dis-belief at your dismissive attitude to the objections of the proposed development; frankly it stank of nepotism, corruption, ignorance of facts and public opinions and, it seemed to be just a money making opportunity for certain individuals, plus the promoters and SHDC. But I came away hoping that you and your committee would see sense and ultimately reject the proposal. How wrong can one be?

As Chairman of SHDC’s planning committee, you are ultimately responsible for results and repercussions of the decisions of your committee, but it appears that you are being guided and/or manipulated by certain people and the promoters of the project, all of whom appear to have personal gain as their objective.

How you can be so mis-guided by recently re-elected councillors who have lots to say about this project, but no conviction to vote either one way or the other, but just to leave all their options open for themselves defies belief, they are hypocrites in their own right and as such should be ignored.

At last nights meeting you again ignored the feelings and objections of the electorate (who ultimately pay your salary) and others, of how this development would affect the wellbeing of residents of Wingland, Sutton Bridge and beyond by bulldozing this approval through, all it seems for the price of land which I am led to believe SHDC currently owns.

The big question is; how commercially viable is this project without government subsidies? It would appear that it is not commercially viable and as such will in time become a “white elephant” all at the expense of the tax payer and to the detriment of local residents. Probably leaving an enormous bill that SHDC will have to pick up.

Sleep well Mr Gambba-Jones in the knowledge that your actions are making some members of your electorate very ill, they live in fear of health issues and devaluation of their properties and, that because of your decision making, you are probably at this time one of the most mistrusted and disliked people in South Lincolnshire. It is probably best that you resign your position.

I don’t expect a reply because if I were you, I would not know where to begin!

Jim Stalley – resident Sutton Bridge

c.c. Lincolnshire Free Press