The Old Parsonage
Merston, Chichester PO20 1DZ
County Development Division
West Sussex County Council
County Hall
Chichester PO19 1RG
January 25, 2010
Planning Application WSCC/88/09/NM
Dear Sir/ Madam
I should like to object to this application for the following reasons:
Visual intrusiveness. By the height and circumference of its five towers and other buildings it will be an extremely dominant feature in a flat plain. The plant’s proximity to housing will mar the outlook for residents for very many years to come and constitute a threatening presence. The nearest comparable structures at Humber VHB, Runcton, are just eight metres in height. The digesters would be exactly double and will look colossal. Trees chosen for screening will take at least 20 years to grow. They would be unlikely ever fully to mitigate the impact. The footprint is a massive seven acres.
Noise. The design access statement seeks to reassure that the noise will be minimal. But there is no attempt to measure the noise from each source apart from the CHP nor the five minute peak aggregated noise of the whole installation. The sources include the two teleloaders going backwards and forwards with their reversing noise, each 20 times a day concentrated into two hours, one at the beginning, the other at the end of the day, between the silage clamp and the feed hoppers; the arrival and departure of vehicles bringing the 18,500 tonnes of maize to the site during September, in over 1,000 loads; the mixer engines installed on the outside of the digesters; and the CHP. The stated noise of the CHP is given as 65 dB at 10 metres. What is not given is the degree of attenuation at the nearest house at 250 metres.
Odour. The digestion process itself is fully enclosed. What is not known is the amount of odour that may be emitted from the clamp where maize will be stored for up to three to four months and which will be kept permanently open at the front for access by teleloaders. The documentation states that the liquid in the massive uncovered lagoon will be mostly water. In fact it will principally contain liquid digestate whose odour properties are unknown.
Traffic. The documentation states that vehicle movements will average just three a day with only one per day using the public highway. This is exceptionally misleading. In fact the transport by tractor and trailer will be concentrated in the month of September when the maize crop is harvested. I calculate there will be up to 100 vehicle movements per week during that period from each of the four maize field areas all using the public highway. During that month congestion on those roads, including the hazardous Drayton level crossing on the route from Oving, will be considerable.
Planning policy. It is stated that the application complies with Local Plan Policy RE11A, that restricts the area to ‘commercial horticultural development’.
The proposed plant will be a bio energy plant whose prime purpose and business objective is to generate electricity for the national grid. It is only in a minor way a waste plant for the composting of green waste. It certainly has nothing to do with diversion from landfill as claimed to be one of its objectives.
Two thirds of the feedstock will be brought in from energy crops of maize grown specifically for the purpose on 1,000 acres of farmland in the areas of Selsey, Oving, Yapton and Bosham. The other third will be salad and vegetable waste that will also come from off site. The only direct links to horticultural development on the site is the use of the by-products of digestate as solid and liquid nutrients for the applicant’s farms, the use of electricity to power the applicant’s internal operations and the surplus heat generated by the CHP that might or might not be sold to local non-applicant owned glass houses. Thus there is no very good reason for the plant to be sited where it is planned. A brownfield site would be far more appropriate.
At detail level the application conflicts with paragraphs 1 and 5 of the HDA planning policy relating to noise levels and to visibility. It can hardly be disputed that five towers of 16 metres will ’damage the character and appearance of the surrounding landscape.’
The presence in the site layout configuration of two extra digesters that are, for some reason, omitted from the Planning, Design and Access statement indicate that the capacity for expansion is already in the plans. This is not commercial horticultural development but a diversification into industrial power generation.
Property values. It is almost certain that if the plant is approved residential property values within a radius of up to 400 metres, perhaps more, from the site, will suffer.
Conclusion. The Planning Statement paragraph 5.03 states that the ‘proposed site can accommodate the scheme with minimal impact upon local amenity or the character of the area.’ Nothing could be further from the truth. The plant will completely transform the character of the area, and severely damage the amenity of a community as grade I quality farmland is converted to the 24/7 operations of an industrial estate in the making.
Yours faithfully
Stephen Quigley
Resident at Merson and Chichester District Council ward member for North Mundham
Click here to return to the top of the page.