home - committee - volume - faq's - help -search - meeting - previous - next

V25-87 : W2841/6 LAND AT BECCLES BUSINESS PARK, WORLINGHAM

The Sub-Committee considered the report of the Director of Planning and Building Control which examined the merits of a proposal to construct an industrial incinerator to dispose of the carcasses of cattle under the Government's BSE Culling programme.

The report incorporated the responses of consultees including local parish councils, businesses, local residents, the Director of Housing and Environmental Services, and the Environment Agency.

Since preparing the report a petition containing approximately 1200 signatures and a petition of 300 North Cove residents had been received objecting to the proposal . The Worlingham Parish Council had further considered the application at a meeting on 8 April 1997 and now recommended refusal on similar grounds to the other parish councils.

Friends of the Earth had made further comment regarding technical aspects of the proposal. They felt the applicants reasoning for not including dust abatement measures was based on theoretical data using scaling up calculations which were not necessarily correct. The National Friends of the Earth had however, written to the applicants implying that they supported incineration as the best means of disposal.

The applicants had sent a letter to members advising them of developments since the application was first submitted. The applicants considered that the revised supporting statement had not been fully used in consideration of the application. The Director refuted this suggestion and felt that the statement did not change the argument, although it was included notwithstanding.

The applicants felt the level of objections demonstrated the lack of understanding of the processes involved. Many of these objections were contradictory or erroneous, or related to the Government's handling of BSE, and it was felt that good answers were given to all of these concerns where the opportunity was given.

The Director's report was criticised for making reference to refused applications but did not mention the numerous permissions given throughout the United Kingdom. The report also did not explain that although the proposal was defined as a Part A process this was due to two Part B cremators being combined, which would usually be authorised by the local authority. The applicants did not consider that unfounded public perceptions could be treated as material planning considerations.

In concluding the Director felt that it was clear from representations received that public confidence in the area both as a business and a residential environment would suffer. The Business Park might well fail to develop, housebuilding could be adversely affected, and existing employers deterred from future investment. He recommended refusal on the following grounds:

(a) the proposal would be likely to have a seriously adverse effect upon the local economy by reason of the perceived risk of pollution associated with such a use.

(b) the applicants had failed to demonstrate that the proposed location would be in accordance with the principles of PPG13 and PPG23 by minimising transport distances.

The Sub-Committee were unanimous in their support of the Director's recommendation and added that the development would be in their view contrary to Policy E2 of the Local Plan.

RESOLVED

That planning permission be refused to application W2841/6.

Volume 25 Minute 87

powered by Oultwood Web Technology

© Waveney District Council