Peel regroups after Barton rejection
Peel Energy said it will "consider the findings" in the planning authority's written reasons for refusing permission for a biomass incinerator in Trafford on Thursday evening.
Trafford councillors voted unanimously against the planning application for the 20MW Barton Renewable Energy Plant in Davyhulme. Officers at the council had earlier recommended the plant for approval saying there were no relevant objections, although a petition organised by objectors attracted 5,000 signatures from local residents. Air quality has been the main source of concern locally, with Peel strongly refuting claims from local campaigners.
Peel said the plant would have been "capable of generating enough low carbon electricity to meet the needs of up to 37,000 homes. It would utilise approximately 200,000 tonnes of biomass annually, with much of the fuel comprising waste wood diverted from landfill."
Following the planning committee's decision, Jon England, Peel Energy's project manager, said: "We are disappointed that the planning committee has seen fit to turn down the expert evidence placed before it. The recommendation for approval was very clear. The proposal accords with national and local planning policy and a number of other similar proposals have gained planning consent elsewhere recently.
"We realise that applications like these are not easy. However, modern and reliable power plants are required if the UK is to meet its renewable energy targets, avoid valuable resources going into landfill and to keep the lights on.
"We will now take some time to consider the findings of the committee's official written report before deciding on our next course of action."
I am hardly surprised; what have the Peel Group of companies ever given to the good people of Urmston? Traffic jams at Christmas to name one such gift!
By The Professor
I don’t believe the expert evidence was ignored but rather when all considered,it was decided that having a power plant so close to schools and homes was not a good idea and that an alternative location away from residential property should be found
By JW
The sooner the government pushes through the new planning legislation the better. Projects like this which are clearly for the national good shouldn’t be stopped by nimbyism. So long as these people don’t complain when we have energy shortages in 5 years time.
By Paul
Turn off ALL your gadgets then, Paul! It has been found that those with the predeliction to make cries of NIMBYISM are themselves chief protagonists – happy to have such a plant on YOUR doorstep, Paul?
By The Professor
Out of interest Prof… how/where/when was it ‘found’. The NIMBY thing aside though has the NO campaign been able to rebut any of the ‘expert evidence’ to strengthen their argument?
By Anonymous
If this thing was LITERALLY at the bottom of my garden then you may have a point. But ultimately this was brought down by the well organised residents of Urmston where the impact will be less than negligable. The committee were just looking after their own political interests and will succeed at appeal. The cost of which will be bourne via increased energy bills.
By Paul
Oh give the altruistic spiel a rest. The driving purpose behind the plant is to reduce energy bills for Peel’s ugly jumble of developments in and around Dumplington rather than reducing household energy bills or saving the planet. And the visuals are misleading too – the plant would look nothing like that.
By Peel Moulding
An expert on air dispersion modelling are we Paul? Using Peel figures this plant would kick out over 655Kg of toxic heavy metals every year. where do you think it will all fall? The BREP car park? AND Peel were proposing a shortened chimney height. Far from negligable for Urmston residents. I hope it is good riddance to this monstrosity. Also 20MW is absolutely miniscule energy generation, about 4 wind turbines? NOT WORTH THE RISK.
By Rick
Again… Did the NO campaign disprove the Peel dispersion calculations?
By Anonymous