Comment for planning application SCC/0045/23SE

37 Crowland Road Haverhill Suffolk CB9 9LE

Please note that I object to this planning application on the grounds that there is significant risk of diffuse pollution to the environment including but not limited to groundwater, run-off of surface water, and the atmosphere. Particular risk is present due to the location of this proposed development in an area which has been known to flood frequently. Not least in recent years, and with the likelihood of increases in the frequency of flooding, the risk of a breach at the proposed development is significantly heightened. The plant is also proposed in close proximity to the entrance gateway to haverhill, an area which has been much improved with the siting of the Epicentre as a flagship development attracting both existing and new commercial enterprises to the town, creating many jobs and bringing additional revenues to the area. The proposed development is likely to sustain less than 10 members of staff, yet cover a much greater footprint. Now then, let's turn to the elephant in the room. The stench. There is not a single Anaerobic Digestion plant that I have passed that does not emit an awful smell at least some of the time. I note that there are some advantages, in so far as the proposed development will create energy from non-fossil-derived biomass, however there is a significant concern that was covered by the venerable George Monbiot in his respected column in The Guardian, which sets out the facts that many farmers have switched from growing vegetable foodstuffs to feed humans, to growing crops specifically for sale to anaerobic digestion plants... this is now commonly the case. There are no assurances that the risk of pollution, stench, nor are there any undertakings that the operators of the proposed plant will agree to use only waste products to fuel the plant going forward. May I therefore suggest that this proposed development is rejected on the above grounds, and that the developers be encouraged to reconsider both the efficacy of their project, the ethicality of their project, and the ecological soundness of their project, and that should they decide to amend their proposals in a new application, that it be in a site which is far less likely to increase the risk of pollution to the environment. Thank you.