Comment for planning application SCC/0045/23SE

4 Hollesley Avenue Haverhill

There are numerous reasons why I object to this proposal: 1) Traffic and safety: The proposed building of this facility is close to the A1307 a road which is already heavily used and an accident listed road. The proposed site is very close to the gateway into Haverhill a fast-growing town and is going to add more burden to this road with additional heavy trucks travelling frequently on it adding more risk of accidents to it. At peak times the road is often heavily congested, and is only going to be added to with the completion of new housing in Haverhill and also Linton. The bio site will make this congestion worse, especially relating to the free and safe flow of traffic in the area. It will also impact local villages such as Withersfield with more farm traffic using a road infrastructure which is poor. Environmentally this proposed site is being considered close to a flood plain and will be of such as size it is likely to add to the flood risk. The proposed site is susceptible to flooding, and is in the upper limits of the government's flooding maps (https://www.gov.uk/check-long-term-flood-risk). Fields are already often flooded after heavy rain. The increased flood risk is due to the proposal being built close to the flood plain and increases the environmental risk of contamination by toxic substances which could escape from the facility affecting the River Stour locally and further downstream. The contamination raises further risk of injury to humans and animals. With global warming and the likelihood of increased water levels and extreme weather conditions, it is folly to build on land that will likely become more flooded. Additionally, there is a likely fire and explosion risk from such a proposed operation. Biogas (methane) is highly flammable and explosive. With the start of the urban area of Haverhill being 500m from the facility, this is a concern. An explosion would affect the properties and businesses nearby, and a methane release, combined with the prevailing winds, would leave people exposed to this gas (and potentially carcinogens). No other facility of this type is built so close to a town. 2) Public wellbeing and mental health: Odours from facilities of this type spread over a considerable distance and will affect residents of Haverhill and surrounding villages impacting their quality of life and mental wellbeing a very topical subject at the present time. Residents in summer are likely to find the smell unpleasant and will not be able to enjoy their gardens, even to the extent that they may not be able to open windows to allow in air to the house. The proposed site is very close to not only housing in Haverhill but also Withersfield. Wind will spread the smell and we know from other facilities of this type the smell from them can be overwhelming and something to avoid at all costs. To live in the path of this smell will affect so many elements of a healthy living. Acorn cannot say that odours will be minimised. There will be a smell due to the type of material to be used in the process and will attract not only flies but also rats both of which will impact on residents' well-being. 3) Planning consents: I understand that the proposed land currently comes under the category of Agriculture, whereas the facility cannot be considered anything other than Industrial in nature, which would therefore require a change of use of land for the proposal to be actionable. In a time where agricultural land may become more critical, this would be a poor decision to approve a change of use 4) Local business and economic: Local business (other than farming) will also be impacted. Using the Epicentre as an example any if not all of the businesses in this building are likely to be quickly dissuaded from occupying the local area. Who would want to bring clients into a building so close to a site likely producing foul odours and heavy traffic. Further afield in the town, the ability to attract or retain businesses could be impacted by the output from this proposed facility, with the likelihood of jobs being affected. There are other businesses within half a mile if not less of the proposed site likely to be unduly affected including, the Flying Shuttle Restaurant and the Montessori pre-school facility, the latter where you will find young children whose health could be impacted by the discharge from the site. Whilst the facility may not be releasing bad-smelling odours all the time, there is a point where any frequency becomes a problem for the local community - business or residential. There is also more than likely to be an impact not only on people's mental wellbeing if the odours are excessive, but also their happiness and wealth, impacting their mental health even more. As stated above Haverhill is a growing town and there is not only the pre-school, pub/restaurant, and Epicentre within a short distance of the proposed site there is also housing not only within a short distance of the site but also over the larger are of Haverhill and local villages the value of properties could likely be affected, by not only the odours but also the increased risk of flooding and the risk of fire and explosion. Finally The objections raised could be mitigated by finding a better location for this proposed site. It is neither safe nor sensible for it to be built in this location. The risks to the local population and environment far outweigh the benefits of the proposal which incidentally Haverhill and the local villages will not benefit from. It would make more sense to build this proposal closer to the destination of the output (gas) Milton Keynes. It raises one further question is the transportation of the gas to its final destination environmentally friendly?