Comment for planning application SCC/0045/23SE

3 Barsey Close Hanchett End Haverhill Suffolk

The proposed development is in the incorrect location, it will have maximum impact and zero benefit to the local community. The proposed development is not recognised within the Local Plan and is not in line with the local planning authority's strategic development policy or vision for the area. The Local Plan does however contain a statement about the importance of people's health and wellbeing. Given the odours which will be emitted from the plant itself and the transportation of waste material, this will contravene the local plan statement and affect people from enjoying their homes, gardens and outside space due to the offensive odour. (I have personally witnessed the pungent smells generated from existing AD plants at Halstead and the A505 near Baldock) The proposed development is within a designated green belt, so why would the planning authority permit an industrial development of this nature and scope when the area has been recognised as valuable green belt and should be protected as such. The proposed development sits within a known flood zone area. Flooding in this area would compromise the plant and lead to potential contamination of the watercourse and damage to ecology locally and along the river Stour. I read with interest the proposed surface water drainage solution for the site is to discharge the water into the Stour Brook. Even with an attenuation pond, it will mean the levels of water discharging into the brook will increase significantly during heavy rainfall periods and lead to more frequent flooding issue further downstream. The extent of impervious surfaces across the proposed development will cause further excessive rainwater run-off compared to the existing land which provides natural filtration and absorption through the soil matrix. The proposed development is near to a designated Wildlife area as recognised by Suffolk Wildlife Trust (West Town Park / Reservoir) and having the plant in such proximity and the odour generated will spoil people's enjoyment of an important public amenity and popular fishery. It goes without saying that HGV and agricultural vehicle movements along the A1307 and wider local road network will increase significantly as a result of the proposed development. HGVs and tractor / trailers will need to join a 60 mph A road, which is already known to be a high-risk accident route. This does not make any sense and at the very least will result in traffic issues and at worse cause more accidents. Light pollution has been assessed and included within a detailed report, but it neglects to include the gas flare arrangement which will burn off excess gas. This will omit significant amounts of light and will be positioned at a considerable height - why was this not included within the report and visuals. Indeed, the burning of biogas or biomethane produces harmful pollutants into the air which are likely to affect nearby residents and businesses. Carbon footprint - changing land use from agriculture to constructing the AD plant, including increased traffic pollution and transporting the biogas across the country will be environmentally damaging. Has a 'life cycle analysis' been carried out to capture the carbon emissions for the following - o Construction of the development o Operation of the plant o Transportation - raw materials in and byproducts out o End of life - emissions linked to demolition, recycling, disposal, land reinstatement, etc. A development of this nature and scale will surely not meet government net carbon zero targets in terms of CO emissions. Digestate storage releases ammonia which can severely impact air quality. How is this type of development going to show a positive biodiversity net gain when the land is being destroyed in favour on installing a large-scale industrial zone where the major beneficiaries are not the local community. There will be a negative impact on local businesses and customers using their services and facilities - for example the Flying Shuttle, Epi Centre, Children's Nursery, Sainsbury's, B&Q, Halfords. As witnessed in Oxford on 2nd October this year, there is a risk of explosion and fire to a plant of this type and given its proximity to existing residential and commercial development, this needs to be factored into a wider risk appraisal and siting the AD plant in a more suitable location. The aftermath of the explosion resulted in major disruption, closing off roads, residents having to close windows and stay inside their homes, all emergency services had to attend, the risk of contamination to the land and watercourse and impact on travel and business continuity. Given the fermenter tanks are constructed from steel and sit some 17m high, this would naturally increase the probability of lightning strikes. Furthermore, the complexity of the site and storage of large volumes of flammable materials on site would exacerbate such an incident. If the key driver for the proposed development is creating a renewable energy source, the proposed AD plant should be in a more appropriate location which is far less impactful on the local community, road infrastructure and landscape. Why has a cleaner renewable energy installation like solar not been considered as a viable option - no smell, no noise, less traffic, fully reversible, no pollution risk, far less carbon footprint in terms of installation and operation and could support local people.