|
|
PLANNING APPLICATION DCC/2975/2010
Development of the “New England Resource Recovery Centre”
Dear Mrs. Penaluna,
We, Christopher and Katrina Taylor, of Ivybridge, would like to register our planning-related objections to the proposed incinerator project at New England Quarry on the following grounds:
1. The issues relating to the direct and indirect accumulative impacts on public health resulting from long-term and continuous particle and toxic chemical emissions from the incineration of domestic and commercial waste have by no means been resolved. The applicant’s claim that many of the known toxins are “undetectable” merely suggests that the technology does not exist to measure the hazardous accumulations that would be released into the environment and food chains. The quantity of dioxins etc. released per tonne of refuse might be small, but when multiplied by the projected annual turnover of incinerated waste the quantities of such toxins would become significant. The resulting pollution would be permanent and irreversible and would directly affect all flora and fauna, and many of the toxins would readily enter the food chain and accumulate within the human population. No processing plant developed by mortal technology is infallible and there would inevitably be occasions when mishaps occur and the resulting peaks in incinerator emissions would add to the ‘normal’ emissions with or without public awareness.
2. The Carbon Dioxide emissions from mass incineration would be phenomenal and much greater than the emissions achievable from cleaner waste processing technologies. It is universally accepted by most institutions that the production and release of carbon dioxide should be minimised wherever possible.
3. The net heat energy output, i.e. the heat energy produced from the proposed incinerator, minus the heat energy input required to fuel the incineration process, has in this proposed location nowhere to be effectively utilised. The suggestions made by the applicant for heating distant factories, superstores and future housing developments are impracticable and the targeted ‘customers’ might not be interested in purchasing heat as pumped from such a distant source.
4. The proposed incinerator would produce large quantities of ash in two categories: the lighter ‘fly ash’ would have to be inefficiently transported some 150 miles to a specialist site – producing more CO2 and motorway traffic. The heavier ‘bottom ash’ still containing families of metals and other toxins would be kept permanently in a landfill configuration at New England Quarry. The notion that anyone would want this heavy ash for road-building when the locally-existing mountains of china clay waste remain unused is not worthy of consideration. The site at New England Quarry lies in the floodplain of the River Yealm and the uncontainable toxic leachate from the ‘bottom ash’ would certainly enter the river system, with lamentable consequences for all creatures that depend upon that river.
5. Within the human sphere of subjectivity the visual impact of another huge structure with a tall bleak tower of a chimney would be a constant eyesore to the local community and all visitors to Plymouth and beyond. Some curious individuals might want to visit the facility to see what processes are involved, but the vast majority of locals and tourists will be deterred from the outstandingly beautiful and peaceful Yealm valley and its surrounding countryside that currently exists in harmony with wildlife and nature.
6. The inhabitants of Lee Mill and Ivybridge and surrounding villages have witnessed with the development of the superstore and industrial units at Lee Mill a massive increase in traffic through the village of Lee Mill and the A38 underpass at the eastern end of the village. It is virtually impossible to drive in that area during the day without meeting large articulated lorries negotiating their way through the village or out of the underpass. The prospect of at least 120 extra refuse trucks swarming daily in that locality when the incinerator is in service and the initial convoys of construction traffic would lead to regular traffic disruption as well as having a most detrimental effect on the quality of the lives of the local residents. The adjacent local section of the A38 is already a notorious accident black spot.
7. There are in existence more suitable sites for the handling and processing of waste materials and cleaner technologies are available and these are being provided in other regions. We understand that the New England Quarry site was identified by the local council in 2005, although the public were only effectively made aware of the proposed development in late 2009 - and that awareness was generated almost exclusively by local individuals and action groups. There has been much debate locally as to whether there have been political conflicts of interest with regard to the New England site.
8. We are concerned that in the event of planning permission being granted for an incinerator facility at New England Quarry, that a licence would be given for 25 years of continuous incineration, with severe financial penalties for revoking that licence if it is realised with hindsight that cleaner technologies should have been implemented.
9. Finally, we are alarmed that if an incinerator is built, there would be a public perception that there would be little or no incentive for recycling as the damage had been done and one might as well send everything to the furnace.
Yours sincerely,
Christopher and Katrina Taylor |
IP Logged
|
