Comments Form

I object to the above application on the following grounds: Environment: i. The site is on or adjacent to a flood plain. Even though the applicant may be confident that there will be no leak from the site, consideration needs to be given to the effects on the surrounding area, including the tributary of the River Stour, if there were to be any such leak. I do not believe that it is possible to say there will be no leakage whatsoever, whether this is from the stored materials to 'feed' the bio-digester, or from the plant itself. The possible effect therefore need to be considered. ii. Concreting over several acres of farmland in order to build the bio-digester will only contribute a) to the likelihood of flooding (currently occurring more than once a year), and b) to the severity of any flooding, not only in the vicinity but also further downstream. Consideration needs to be given to the effects of any flooding, and how the building will make this more likely, rather than solely looking at the likelihood of flooding (bearing in mind that climate change will increase the risk of this happening). iii. There is a risk of odours, from both the stored materials and from the plant itself. There are multiple reports from other sites that this is the case. The applicant is confident that there will be no odours, but again, consideration needs to be given as to how this will be addressed in the event that the applicant is wrong in its contention. Location i. In addition to the above points (flooding and odour), the chosen site is too close to existing and proposed urban development. It will adversely affect the lives of thousands of people, as well as businesses. This is one of many applications that the applicant is making throughout the UK: the applicant has many other options, does not have to use this landowner/land. In addition, the landowner has a vast estate, and there are several other more suitable sites away from such a populous area (detailed in other objections which I have read on the County Council website). ii. producing biogas in Haverhill from crops grown locally for that purpose, which is then transported by road to be fed into the national grid makes no environmental sense. iii. The whole proposed operation will have a clear detrimental effect on the local road network. Again, I agree with the many more detailed comments on this contained in other objections you have received, particularly in the objection submitted by Mr Frank Eve. Other I question the basis of this proposal, and although this may not strictly fall within the parameters of planning law, I would like to think that our elected representatives would consider the following points (which I am sure could fit within one or other of the 'planning' headings): a) This application has been dressed up as being for the public good, i.e. environmentally produced energy with fertiliser for the landowner's farming business as a by-product. I would like you to consider that it shousl in fact be viewed as a money-making project. The applicant is in receipt of public funding, and the landowner will no doubt be receiving some sort of 'green credit' (whether for the farming business or another of its businesses). Is this the good use of public money? - has any environmental benefit of industrial-scale production of biogas using agricultural crops grown for that purpose been properly costed? Should Grade 2 agricultural crops primarily be grown for feeding people (the Prime Minister has recently spoken about this in relation to wind farms)? If the need is to produce fertiliser, then should this not be done on more marginal land? Why is there now a need for a 'break crop' when this has not been the case to date? - does using grade 2 agricultural land to grow crops in order to feed a biogester so as to produce a limited amount of biogas which is then transported 100+ miles to be fed into the national grid really make any sense, environmentally (see points above) or financially, if any direct or indirect public subsidy is taken out of the equation?

Application number
Name
Address	Duke's Cottage Rose Hill Withersfield Nr. Haverhill Suffolk CB9 7SE
Type of Comment
Comments	I object to the above application on the following grounds: Environment: i. The site is on or adjacent to a flood plain. Even though the applicant may be confident that there will be no leak from the site, consideration needs to be given to the effects on the surrounding area, including the tributary of the River Stour, if there were to be any such leak. I do not believe that it is possible to say there will be no leakage whatsoever, whether this is from the stored materials to 'feed' the bio-digester, or from the plant itself. The possible effect therefore need to be considered. ii. Concreting over several acres of farmland in order to build the bio-digester will only contribute a) to the likelihood of flooding (currently occurring more than once a year), and b) to the severity of any flooding, not only in the vicinity but also further downstream. Consideration needs to be given to the effects of any flooding, and how the building will make this more likely, rather than solely looking at the likelihood of flooding (bearing in mind that climate change will increase the risk of this happening). iii. There is a risk of odours, from both the stored materials and from the plant itself. There are multiple reports from other sites that this is the case. The applicant is confident that there will be no odours, but again, consideration needs to be given as to how this will be addressed in the event that the applicant is wrong in its contention. Location i. In addition to the above points (flooding and odour), the chosen site is too close to existing and proposed urban development. It will adversely affect the lives of thousands of people, as well as businesses. This is one of many applications that the applicant is making throughout the UK: the applicant has many other options, does not have to use this landowner/land. In addition, the landowner has a vast estate, and there are several other more suitable sites away from such a populous area (detailed in other objections which I have read on the County Council website). ii. producing biogas in Haverhill from crops grown locally for that purpose, which is then transported by road to be fed into the national grid makes no environmental sense. iii. The whole proposed operation will have a clear detrimental effect on the local road network. Again, I agree with the many more detailed comments on this contained in other objections you have received, particularly in the objection submitted by Mr Frank Eve. Other I question the basis of this proposal, and although this may not strictly fall within the parameters of planning law, I would like to think that our elected representatives would consider the following points (which I am sure could fit within one or other of the 'planning' headings): a) This application has been dressed up as being for the public good, i.e. environmentally produced energy with fertiliser for the landowner's farming business as a by-product. I would like you to consider that it shousl in fact be viewed as a money-making project. The applicant is in receipt of public funding, and the landowner will no doubt be receiving some sort of 'green credit' (whether for the farming business or another of its businesses). Is this the good use of public money? - has any environmental benefit of industrial-scale production of biogas using agricultural crops grown for that purpose been properly costed? Should Grade 2 agricultural crops primarily be grown for feeding people (the Prime Minister has recently spoken about this in relation to wind farms)? If the need is to produce fertiliser, then should this not be done on more marginal land? Why is there now a need for a 'break crop' when this has not been the case to date? - does using grade 2 agricultural land to grow crops in order to feed a biogester so as to produce a limited amount of biogas which is then transported 100+ miles to be fed into the national grid really make any sense, environmentally (see points above) or financially, if any direct or indirect public subsidy is taken out of the equation?
Received
Attachments

Comment for planning application SCC/0045/23SE