Comments Form

I strongly object to the above application for the following reasons: Location: The construction period will be 72 weeks, according to the application. Heavy construction machinery will need to excavate the site in preparation for concreting over the 31 acre site; construction will then involve dozens, if not hundreds, of HGV movements in and out of the site. Once completed, the plant will operate on a 24/7 basis. This means local residents will have to endure constant disruption from odour, noise, increased traffic and loss of enjoyment, at absolutely zero value to themselves. There is little evidence supporting any in-depth assessment of alternative sites. That which is included in the application is scant and is easily dismissed when the Council examine it, which they must. Flooding: The site is clearly designated as Flood Zone 3 but the applicant wants to claim the development site is only partially in a Flood Zone 3 risk area, which is almost irrelevant to this risk. Recent photographic evidence demonstrates that the site floods in many areas, especially to the east of the site where the clamps are to be situated. Should there be any doubt, I would encourage the Council to view the evidence of recent flooding on the Muck Off Acorn website and Facebook page. Traffic & Feedstock: The A1307 is already designated a dangerous route and there have been several fatal accidents over the years, some involving children. Any increase in traffic movement, especially HGVs and slow moving farm vehicles should not be permitted on this road. The applicant details the majority of deliveries to and from the site will use this dangerous road. The applicant states that 92,000 tons of material will be delivered to the site annually, once operational. It also states that 40% of this volume will be chicken and farmyard manure, therefore 37,000 tons of manure will be delivered to site. The applicant claims that 'the majority' of the material will come from the farms operated by The Thurlow Estate (the landowner who will lease the land at Spring Grove Farm to the developer, by coincidence). There is a problem with this claim: the Thurlow Estate does not keep cattle nor chickens. So where is this waste coming from? The applicant should be forced to disclose who and where this 37 tons of manure is coming from. Do they have agreements with farms outside of the Thurlow Estate that can provide this volume of manure? If not, what 'waste' will provide this material vital to the process? Food waste seems the most likely answer. The only other answer can be that it will be coming from much further than the Thurlow Estate land and will have to travel further on public roads. Odour: There is a mass of evidence that supports the claims of unbearably bad odours from local residents that live close to similar developments; almost no assessments, bar those carried out by the applicants themselves, exist to deny these claims. Indeed, a decent independently commissioned report by Jaynic, the owners of the Epicentre, criticises the assessment and the methodology used by the applicant as 'not in accord with IAQM guidance' and that other methods should be applied given the sensitivity of local receptors. This implies the applicant has deliberately and knowingly used methodology that will be sympathetic to its cause. The cause of the bad odours is rotting vegetation and poultry/farmyard manure. These materials will be delivered to site and deposited from both uncovered HGVs and uncovered farm tractors with open trailers. One of the main activities undertaken on-site will be to move the waste from delivery vehicles to the storage tanks (clamps), and from the storage tanks to the AD vessel. This will be done using JCBs. The 'waste' will be in the open throughout until moved into the clamps. The clamps will be opened to allow access for the 'waste' material, so they will be opened and closed regularly throughout all times of the day. Local residents will be subjected to foul odours emanating from the material as it's moved about the site, and from the clamps, which contain rotting waste, when they are opened. This is unacceptable. Additionally, this type of 'waste', by its very their nature, will attract vermin and flies. Flies especially are attracted to this type of organic waste, but, unlike vermin, are also likely to travel away from the source. There is a high probability of infestations from both species within a 1km radius. Employment: The application claims that 15 jobs will be created by this site and approximately 100 during the construction phase. The construction is specialised so the vast majority will not be sourced locally. That which is ma y be local 'trades'. This will further disadvantage the local community during construction, depriving them of local services they rely on. The application goes on to say that, once operational, the site will have 5 full time employees. This indicates the remaining 10 will be located elsewhere, so total local employment will rise by 5. Unfortunately, the plant will cause many local businesses to close and move elsewhere as they will not be able to attract suitable employees or investment due to the issues associated with the operation of the plant - odour, noise, views, traffic and so on. The result will almost certainly be a net loss in employment and a damage to Haverhill's economy. For all of the reasons above, I strongly urge the Council to deny this application. They are duty bound to take into consideration the detrimental effects of this development, and not the profits for a local landowner and a non-domiciled foreign beneficiary.

Application number
Name
Address	32 Calford Drive, Haverhill, Suffolk, CB9 7WQ
Type of Comment
Comments	I strongly object to the above application for the following reasons: Location: The construction period will be 72 weeks, according to the application. Heavy construction machinery will need to excavate the site in preparation for concreting over the 31 acre site; construction will then involve dozens, if not hundreds, of HGV movements in and out of the site. Once completed, the plant will operate on a 24/7 basis. This means local residents will have to endure constant disruption from odour, noise, increased traffic and loss of enjoyment, at absolutely zero value to themselves. There is little evidence supporting any in-depth assessment of alternative sites. That which is included in the application is scant and is easily dismissed when the Council examine it, which they must. Flooding: The site is clearly designated as Flood Zone 3 but the applicant wants to claim the development site is only partially in a Flood Zone 3 risk area, which is almost irrelevant to this risk. Recent photographic evidence demonstrates that the site floods in many areas, especially to the east of the site where the clamps are to be situated. Should there be any doubt, I would encourage the Council to view the evidence of recent flooding on the Muck Off Acorn website and Facebook page. Traffic & Feedstock: The A1307 is already designated a dangerous route and there have been several fatal accidents over the years, some involving children. Any increase in traffic movement, especially HGVs and slow moving farm vehicles should not be permitted on this road. The applicant details the majority of deliveries to and from the site will use this dangerous road. The applicant states that 92,000 tons of material will be delivered to the site annually, once operational. It also states that 40% of this volume will be chicken and farmyard manure, therefore 37,000 tons of manure will be delivered to site. The applicant claims that 'the majority' of the material will come from the farms operated by The Thurlow Estate (the landowner who will lease the land at Spring Grove Farm to the developer, by coincidence). There is a problem with this claim: the Thurlow Estate does not keep cattle nor chickens. So where is this waste coming from? The applicant should be forced to disclose who and where this 37 tons of manure is coming from. Do they have agreements with farms outside of the Thurlow Estate that can provide this volume of manure? If not, what 'waste' will provide this material vital to the process? Food waste seems the most likely answer. The only other answer can be that it will be coming from much further than the Thurlow Estate land and will have to travel further on public roads. Odour: There is a mass of evidence that supports the claims of unbearably bad odours from local residents that live close to similar developments; almost no assessments, bar those carried out by the applicants themselves, exist to deny these claims. Indeed, a decent independently commissioned report by Jaynic, the owners of the Epicentre, criticises the assessment and the methodology used by the applicant as 'not in accord with IAQM guidance' and that other methods should be applied given the sensitivity of local receptors. This implies the applicant has deliberately and knowingly used methodology that will be sympathetic to its cause. The cause of the bad odours is rotting vegetation and poultry/farmyard manure. These materials will be delivered to site and deposited from both uncovered HGVs and uncovered farm tractors with open trailers. One of the main activities undertaken on-site will be to move the waste from delivery vehicles to the storage tanks (clamps), and from the storage tanks to the AD vessel. This will be done using JCBs. The 'waste' will be in the open throughout until moved into the clamps. The clamps will be opened to allow access for the 'waste' material, so they will be opened and closed regularly throughout all times of the day. Local residents will be subjected to foul odours emanating from the material as it's moved about the site, and from the clamps, which contain rotting waste, when they are opened. This is unacceptable. Additionally, this type of 'waste', by its very their nature, will attract vermin and flies. Flies especially are attracted to this type of organic waste, but, unlike vermin, are also likely to travel away from the source. There is a high probability of infestations from both species within a 1km radius. Employment: The application claims that 15 jobs will be created by this site and approximately 100 during the construction phase. The construction is specialised so the vast majority will not be sourced locally. That which is ma y be local 'trades'. This will further disadvantage the local community during construction, depriving them of local services they rely on. The application goes on to say that, once operational, the site will have 5 full time employees. This indicates the remaining 10 will be located elsewhere, so total local employment will rise by 5. Unfortunately, the plant will cause many local businesses to close and move elsewhere as they will not be able to attract suitable employees or investment due to the issues associated with the operation of the plant - odour, noise, views, traffic and so on. The result will almost certainly be a net loss in employment and a damage to Haverhill's economy. For all of the reasons above, I strongly urge the Council to deny this application. They are duty bound to take into consideration the detrimental effects of this development, and not the profits for a local landowner and a non-domiciled foreign beneficiary.
Received
Attachments

Comment for planning application SCC/0045/23SE