Representation by Elaine Marper
- Date submitted
- 14 September 2022
- Submitted by
- Members of the public/businesses
Due to the maximum permitted 500 word length this response is not an exhaustive list. There is a great deal of local public concern which should be considered regarding this application (The Inspectors Report for Caudrilla Appeal stated this was a material planning consideration}. There are grave concerns regarding air quality, level of pollutants and CO2 emissions. How long would it take to shut down the plant and cut off toxin flow if a problem is detected with regard to emission limits being exceeded? There is no proven track record in benefits outweighing the risks, economic benefits would be insignificant, even at a local level. The proposal fails to demonstrate wider benefits to the community. The applicants have not demonstrated that this is the best viable site/technology. The site sits in a Flood Risk Zone 3 and this inappropriate development should be avoided. We believe this is the wrong technology in the wrong location. The applicant’s reference “limited remaining capacity at waste management facilities in the region” and “the impact of landfill closure”. We actually have a very large unfilled landfill site operating in the locality. This proposal comprises transport of waste from far outside the locality. Incinerators should be sited in appropriate locations near to the origin of waste, with good transport links in accordance with the Waste Proximity Principal. In terms of concerns regarding safety, we would point out that things only need to go catastrophically wrong once, as our residents well-know due to the Flixborough (NYPRO) disaster. In 2025 it will be 50 years since that disaster but horrific memories of the death toll and devastating impact on the wider area live on. This insensitive application seeks to locate an incinerator in an area where 28 people were incinerated. The applicant maintains that the estimated 250 vehicle movements per day will be reduced by reinstatement of the disused mineral railway, and yet in another statement they state minimal increase in use! (Which statement is correct?) Reinstatement is totally unacceptable, given the present situation whereby residents are not impacted by any noise from the disused railway line. Important to add that this also traverses a public footpath (FP178) on the definitive map and despite what the applicant may purport, is still used by residents and ramblers crossing the old railway line. We have not been given an honest representation of the true impact regarding the height of the stack and its visual impact given the topography of the area, the top of the stack and the inevitable discharge of contaminants and dioxins from the plumes will be considerably closer to Burton residents who are situated at the top of escarpment. There are serious concerns regarding noise, vibration, plume discharge and odours, residents are unconvinced there is sufficient monitoring/enforcement/transparency with any of the existing incinerators in the UK. The general opinion on all UK Incinerators is that “they all stink”. Assurances of odour control and emissions do not serve to convince residents that this plant will be any different.