Anaerobic Digester Plant Planning Application Ref 2017/0001 South Norfolk Council https://info.south-norfolk.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=summary&keyVal=OJ7ALOOQJTU00 proposed please take a look at this large 13.8 acres scale industrial plant in Wicklewood & Morley please note the application documents are inaccurate in particular the transport summary that impacts on highway safety and the noise report. My objection in brief was as follows, if you do wish to object it is vital that you state at the top of your correspondence that it is an objection:
Dear Sirs
Objection to South Norfolk Council re: Planning Application 2017/0001
We are writing to object to the above planning application by Richard Long Ltd for an
Anaerobic Digestion Plant on the following grounds:
1. The proposal is in close proximity to homes, schools and a pub in a quiet rural village which has no pavements, minor roads, some single track and the general character of the area is quiet.
2. The effects of the proposed development on highway safety and convenience of an unknown tonnage of waste, maize and other crops*, (unstated in the Design and Access Planning Statement), – brought in by road and 6,000-7,000 tonnes of wet and dry slurry digestive taken out on unsuitable narrow lanes some of which are which are single track, do not have passing places, two cars cannot pass each other, blind bends - risking accidents - will result in material harm and there is also the failure to comply with statutory saved Policy of the local plan for South Norfolk Council in respect of the highway safety and with the provisions of the NPPF because the
impacts of the proposal cannot be made acceptable via planning conditions.
*A smaller Anaerobic Digestion Plant of 1.8 MW in Oulton Norfolk at Appeal Ref APP/K2610?/14/2212257 was stated on an annual basis to require 30,000 tonnes of input biomass to be delivered to the site, by tractor and 15-tonne trailer units. 17,500 tonnes of liquid biofertiliser would be transported from the site in 27-tonne tankers. Additional movements would be required for the removal of solid digestate fertiliser. Some removal of the solid digestate could take place in the empty trailers, so saving on movements; but the overlap would be limited, and outgoing movements would take place throughout the year. However, the maize harvest itself would be concentrated into a 2-month period of the year, in September-October, and the grass harvest, somewhat earlier, from June to early August. During the harvest period, tractor/trailer movements would be frequent, at about 8 trips per hour (4 in, 4 out) over a continuous 10hr-14hr day.
3. The effects upon the living conditions of both residents in the area arising from the proposed vehicular movements to and from the site and the industrial processes which will cause noise which has not been assessed accurately - The noise evidence has used
conventional measures, however, such representations
inevitably incorporate some degree of statistical smoothing: and so in themselves understate the effects, upon the human receptor, of separate, sudden bursts of sound which conventional practice recognises to be potentially disturbing. Where such bursts of
sound – as in the proposed passage of heavy tractor-trailer units-are not continuous but are frequent and regular, the human response is to expect, predict or anticipate the
interruption, so that the anticipation itself adds to and prolongs the disturbance when it comes. Thus, the response is not only to the increased level of noise, but includes the
anticipation of the increased noise.
National Planning Practice Guidance on noise does not rely upon numerical measures but on qualitative descriptors.
Noticeable noise ranges from noticeable and intrusive noise, which can be mitigated, to noticeable and disruptive noise, which should be avoided. The first causes small changes
in behaviour ... e.g. speaking more loudly; where there is no alternative ventilation, having to close windows for some of the time because of the noise. The second causes a material
change in behaviour e.g. avoiding certain activities during periods of intrusion; where there is no alternative source of ventilation, having to keep windows closed most of the
time because of the noise. Quality of life diminished due to change in acoustic character of the area.separate bursts of loud sound disturbance and odour problems for local
residents - therefore material harm will be caused to the living condition of residents with reference to nose and disturbance.
4. This is a large scale industrial installation proposed on a greenfield site in a rural location, where there has been no demonstration that there is the need for thisindustrial development in the open countryside
5. The industrial scale of the application will adversely impact on the open countryside, including important views of the plateau and the character and appearance of the area
6. Serious harm caused to the historic significance and setting of two Grade II* listed buildings Wicklewood Hall and Morley St Botolph Church It conflicts with paragraphs 6, 7,
14, 17 and 128 of the NPPF
7. The application will add to the risk of surface water flooding on High Common
8. Risk of contamination
9. There will be significant light pollution in what is a dark area with no street lighting. This will impact on local wildlife, including the deer and buzzards.
10. The industrial scale of the application will adversely impact on the setting of the locally important Bath Plantation, including the wildlife that live there.
11. No assurances that the plant’s operations would not cause ill health
12. Increase in vermin and flies from slurry, maize and other waste
13. Lack of detail re plant specification for example true risks of emissions, smells and procedures etc
14. Incorrect and inadequate information in the application documents for example the Transport Summary is for a proposed site at Snetterton, the transport figures are inaccurate, the noise assessment is out of date with current guidance, the plant will not stop sugar beet being hauled to Newark since it is currently hauled to Norfolk or Suffolk factories, the traffic assessment was undertaken in November a quiet time of year for the agricultural industry. The haul routes shown for the plant are understandably designed to suggest to local residents that there will be no traffic through Morley. This cannot be enforced through planning conditions in an agricultural area. Furthermore experience from other AD plants (such as that near Buxton-with-Lamas) has shown that drivers will take the shortest available route. Harvest times are incorrect since they show cropping equally across the calendar year, whereas there will be an inceased increased frequency at certain times of the year with longer working days.
15. No public consultation
We urge the Council to refuse planning permission for this application.
Is this a similar thing to the builiding just off the a11 at Snetterton that has just opened ?
Surely this would have a huge impact on traffic through the village, farming tractors coming from the Bunwell Road up Station Road over the A11 to make deliveries?
I have passed this onto the district councillor for Cromwells ward and the Chair of Planning at Town Council for any action they think is appropriate.
I would suggest as the Clerk outlined that you canvass the Planning officer concerned to consult more widely in which case the Town Council may , if consulted , as an adjacent parish decide to comment , but this is by no means guaranteed.
Sorry but the case against this application has been distorted beyond belief and assumes management failure. Noise, pollution soil and light and ground water contamination will only occur is something goes very wrong
The same with vermin and fly nuisance
The number of vehicle movements as reported is 4 per day but hardly hundreds as some have said
Some of the points being made are valid but this 'guilding the lily' only serves to undermine the objectors case and whip up mass hysteria
Anaerobic digester plants do use decomposing matter and that in itself is not pleasant. The 4 vehicles per day could easily be increased and probably not enforced and could impact us on Spooner Row's main road.
The planning system would need to look very carefully at the pros and cons of this, but as we have experienced in this area, the planning system is biased towards developers.
I think it might not be a bad thing if it is undertaken carefully, is located sensitively and does not impact on people's lives, but what do the authorities care about that, unless it directly has an impact on themselves, e.g. Neil Ward our previous district councillor stopped planning permission next to him and got himself a little tap on the wrist from the council.
A planning application of this type should not be taken lightly and if it does negatively impact on residents at all, then it is not suitable and should be refused.
The people that I know in my Village ( Spooner Row) do welcome the developments. However, this does not come across on the site. It will help to keep the school, the hall and the pub open. Stop whinging.
If that is the case then why are there only objections on SNC's planning website to these inappropriate developments? I don't see any people in Spooner Row write in with support, only objections You have no evidence to support your claim.
To put your mind at rest, the pub, school (which is full) and the village hall are not in danger of closing. Where do you get your silly information from - perhaps you just make it up?
Crap Broadband , school full, village hall very active and as evidenced by there being no spaces left for the quiz, this weekend and as such doing okay , abysmal train service, bus once a week, roads breaking up everywhere, ( no money to fix properly) HGV ' s driving through village by the hundred each day inches from the Primary School gates, drains damaged and still awaiting proper repair, speeding rat run through village to Wymondham and A11 and highways refusing to do anything about this until someone dies, no shop... I could go on.
Perhaps those people who support more houses could name themselves, but I suspect will not do so as they do not exist. Stop lying
If one declares its name in support of housing all they get from this site is abuse. Stop bringing shame to our Village by this site.
(No poster on this forum has complained about abuse for using their own name and the Anonymous option remains. People are allowed to express their opinion regarding topical issues that affect Spooner Row. Please refer to the disclaimer on this website.
Webstation)
-- Edited by webstation on Thursday 23rd of February 2017 03:59:51 PM
Looks like anon on the effects on the village has hit the nail on the head and has upset someone who clearly thinks this is bringing shame on the village.
Tosh
Frank and open discussion reminding persons who do not want to be reminded of their broken promises, and the very shoddy way we seem to be treated by our District Council is obviously of limits apparently.
As far as 'we only see objections', and coming back to this topic, at least two posts here cast doubt on the voracity of the claims being made by the residents of Wicklewood on the likely effects of this digester and have presented a very balanced commentary.
So once again the anon commentary about the site is wrong
From time to time we see an attack on this site because it airs peoples genuine concerns about being treated like something on the bottom of someone's shoe. I can think of at least 4 planning applications to start with. That said this site acts an information forum as well, and is a good one
On account of the forthcoming County Council elections web master has put in place once again a rule that personal attacks and political commentary are not going to be included unless they are open ones. As you will not doubt note this is something which is not a problem for me but clearly is for others.
You as the reader have to ask yourself why that would be ?
