Meeting of Planning Committee, WSCC, to consider application WSCC/061/10/NM for the establishment of an anaerobic digester at the Chichester Food Park, Runcton
Remarks by Stephen Quigley
November 30, 2010
Mr Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, you have already heard concerns about three of the key issues:
I will deal with the remaining two: compliance with planning policy, and identified need.
First, planning policy.
The site chosen for this development is within a Horticultural Development area. As such its use is controlled by Chichester District Local Plan of 1999, policy RE11A.
The intention of this policy is to support the horticultural industry in two ways:
An anaerobic digester has very little to do with horticulture. In fact the agenda papers concede the point in that they refer to it as other development.
The question therefore is not whether this is commercial horticultural development, it is not, but whether the policy allows for ’other development’ of this kind.
It all turns on paragraph 8.11 that I will quote in full:
‘Although the District Council have stated that the policy is’ designed to protect the HDA from development other than commercial horticulture’, this is not stated in either the policy or the supporting text and it should be noted that Policy RE11A does not preclude other development within the HDA.
With regard to the current proposal, therefore, it is considered that there is no direct conflict with this policy.‘
This is a most extraordinary interpretation of the policy. I think George Orwell would have been proud of it.
If you need an explicit statement, we have it in the words of the policy itself and I quote
‘Within the H.D.A…. applications for commercial horticultural development, including glasshouses and packhouses, will be permitted…’.
I believe that any reasonable person would conclude from these words that that other development will not be permitted.
Again, it is true that there is no specific mention that other development is precluded but who could possibly draw the conclusion that therefore other development can be included.
It makes complete nonsense of a policy designed to safeguard the land for horticulture.
It’s fitting the rules to the application.
And it doesn’t make it any more acceptable to say that the plant will play a part in supporting the horticultural and glass houses industry within the HDA. Because it is not needed for that purpose.
Which brings me to need.
The identified need for a digester is claimed to be two fold:
Anaerobic digestion is a perfectly acceptable means for the production of renewable energy. In this case the one megawatt plant would power some 2000 homes and provide additional revenue for the applicant.
But all the claims about moving up the waste hierarchy, complying with various waste planning policies, providing local farmers a solution to their expanding disposal needs, avoiding landfill use etc, are completely beside the point.
There is already an excess of capacity in the county for the processing of green waste. This is without the planned 50,000 tonnes facility at Ashington. We don’t need another waste facility for the foreseeable future.
Certainly not here. Just take the applicant’s own 25,000 tonnes site at Walnut Tree Farm, Runcton. Not much more than half of the feedstock comes from local growers. The rest has to be shipped in from across the county border.
If this proposal goes through they will divert 9,000 tonnes to the plant. How will they backfill that to bring the site to capacity? Not from local or even county growers.
Ladies and gentlemen, we need to reduce our carbon footprint. But not at any price. Due heed must be paid to planning policy, a balanced interpretation of it, to the special character of the area, and the quality of life of the community.
In its letter of June 30, 2010 reporting its objection, the District Council described the proposal as:
‘an industrial process which is a fundamentally inappropriate land use in the open countryside.’
I couldn’t put it better.
Mr Chairman
Click here to return to the top of the page.