Holmes calls on Derbyshire County Council to reject Dunston Incinerator

Chesterfield MP Paul Holmes has written to Derbyshire County Council calling again for the controversial Dunston Incinerator to be rejected.

Paul said "I understand that the Planning Officers are nearing the end of the process of producing their report and their recommendation. It is now possible that the final decision will at last be taken at the Planning Committee meeting scheduled for 4th January 2010.

"The case against this application is overwhelming and has been repeatedly made by many people. I wrote to the Chesterfield Borough Council Planning Officers over this on 13th Oct 2008 and the CBC Planning Committee later unanimously recommended rejecting the proposal.

"The threat of this application has been hanging over the area for a year and a half now. Several businesses have told me that they have suspended or even abandoned plans to locate or expand in the Dunston/Sheepbridge area due to the fear and uncertainty over this application. It is long past the time that a final decision was made and that should be to reject it.

"The environmental concerns have been well publicised. To put such a business in close proximity to 30,000 residents, 19 schools and an increasingly upmarket and clean business complex already employing 1,900 people would be folly of the worst kind."

ENDS

Notes to editors:

Dear Mr Finn,

I understand that you aim to very soon finish your report on the controversial Cyclamax application at Dunston. The hope now is that the Derbyshire County Council Planning Committee meeting on 4th January 2010 will finally decide upon the application.

As you know I wrote to Chesterfield Borough Council's Planning Committee on 13th October 2008 raising concerns about the application. They subsequently unanimously voted to recommend rejection of the application. I also wrote to the Environment Agency on 30th July 2009 to oppose the granting of an Environmental Permit for the proposed site.

The objections to the proposal seem to me to fall into three main groups:

1. Environmental concerns.

There are many complex technical and scientific arguments to be made here and the expert submissions made on behalf of the residents group, Chesterfield Against Incineration, do this better than I can. In short though these concerns are the relatively experimental nature of the technology being proposed at this particular site; the inexperience of the company concerned; the proposed use an inferior gasification process instead of plasma technology and the fears over dangerous emissions from the process and possible noxious smalls from the waste material being brought to the site.

Given these concerns it seems perverse to consider siting such a plant immediately adjacent to a densely populated urban area (3,000 houses at Dunston alone), as well as upwind of major population centres such as Old Whittington and Brimington. In total there are 30,000 residents and 19 schools within a two mile radius. Ironically the Environment Agency tell me that they could require that the proposed Chimney stack be increased in height in an attempt to ensure that any fumes were more likely to clear the densely populated valley that parts of Old Whittington sits in. Such an increase in height would immediately however be detrimental to the visual amenity of the area -something which Cyclamax currently portray as being catered for by hiding the stack in the tree line.

2. Highways concerns.

The County Council Waste Plan, not yet adopted, noted of this site that "the access from Dunston Road is not suitable for large numbers of vehicles; especially HGV's and that large numbers of HGV's could be detrimental to the operation of the roundabout at Whittington Moor." It is therefore impossible to understand why DCC Highways Department have not formally objected to the Cyclamax proposal on traffic grounds. The Cyclamax proposal is specifically to divert HGV's from existing out of town landfill sites and from up to 30 miles away, including Sheffield, INTO precisely this area that DCC regards as 'unsuitable for large numbers of HGV's.'

There is also of course a history of heavy lorries already trying to access unsuitable roads such as Dunston Lane and Dunston Road and getting stuck on essentially country lanes. I have written to DCC about this on more than one occasion. Inevitably a site such as that being proposed by Cyclamax WOULD attract more lorries onto these roads as shortcuts.

3 Location Location!

As well as the potential impact on dense local population centres and local roads this is an unsuitable location for other reasons.

Although once a heavy/'dirty' industrial area it no longer is so. Immediately adjacent to the proposed Cyclamax site is the large and brand new Bridge Business Centre. This was built to exacting environmental requirements and is advertised as 'on the edge of the Peak District' -providing a semi rural location, clean air, free of heavy traffic in a quiet purpose built business park. A little further down Dunston Road is CBC's successful Dunston Hi Tech Centre built to the same high standards. On the older, adjacent, Sheepbridge Industrial Estate are many modern firms such as Fusion which employs 400 people and objects strongly to the Cyclamax proposal. Immediately across from the proposed Cyclamax site is the site of the large scale Ecodome project. None of these are suitable neighbours for a refuse, recycling and 'gasification' plant.

In all the firms and office based companies described above already employ over 1,900 people and contribute over £50Million in wages to the local economy. They have collectively and individually written in, and 33 have advertised in the local press, in order to oppose this entirely unsuitable development. Already I know of several firms who have pulled out of, or suspended, the purchase of premises in the area until they know the outcome of this application.

On all these grounds it seems clear to me that this application should be rejected as being entirely unsuitable and detrimental for this area. Chesterfield Borough Council recommended rejection on five separate counts -not on one 'technicality' as Cyclamax recently claimed at a meeting in Matlock. I along with local residents and local businesses urge that DCC should take the same course.

Yours sincerely,

Paul Holmes MP