Latest
Posting (21
Oct 2009)
The
Wells Environmental Protection Group (WEPG) has followed the formal
complaints procedure with Somerset County Council.
Their
chief executive refused to agree that the public had been given
insufficient time to make councillors aware of their concerns. He
believed
that earlier public meetings held by local and district councils
were adequate.
SCC
councillors had been made fully aware of residents' concerns by the date
of the application approval meeting.
SCC
did not consider that the Proximity Principle - one location's waste
being processed in another locality - would be violated, yet
WP2 could only name confidential sources of waste within a
20-mile radius of Haybridge
The
source of waste has been a bone of contention throughout the proposal.
WP2
has continually changed its statements regarding the source of
contaminated wood, plastics and paper required to burn in the proposed
plant.
SCC
believed that HGV traffic transporting waste to Haybridge would cause no
problems along the A371 or in the adjacent narrow country lanes. Road
signs, they state, will solve exit problems onto Glencot Road immediately in front of the hump-back railway bridge, which has
restricted forward visibility
WEPG
has continually stated that traffic safety in Glencot Road will be a major
problem. Road signs, where oncoming traffic driving over a hump-back
bridge cannot be seen, are unworkable.
SCC
did agree that they could have given earlier consideration to the venue
of the Regulation Committee and advised parties sooner.
For
two years WEPG has asked that this meeting be held in Wells Town Hall.
SCC
is reminding WP2 that a consultation group incorporating local Haybridge
residents is a condition required by the board councillors.
Presumably
WP2 will ask residents concerned to form such a group in the near
future. Readers may recall the article about WP2 in the Wells Journal
earlier in the year, stating it will commence construction shortly.
A
major outstanding problem is one of land ownership. WP2's site plan and
the exit onto Glencot Road requires use of land owned by either A
Masters or Inveresk Paper Mill.
Inveresk
threaten legal action if WP2 or LA Moore commence development
of the project. SCC do not address land ownership disputes, this being
the responsibility of the applicant, WP2.
WEPG
sought advice from the Local Government Ombudsman about further
action regarding the formal complaint. The ombudsman does not feel there
is any case it could pursue against SCC.
Alas,
county councillors we elect to look after our local affairs believe
that Haybridge, a hamlet with narrow lanes, on a proposed
multi-user-path between
Wells and Cheddar is an ideal location for a waste plant. They clearly overlook the fact that
as well
as being just 150 metres from
residents' homes, plant emissions will
blow directly across Wells and land allocated for future housing by
Mendip District Council.
Our
future safety lies in WP2's abilities to operate efficiently, and the
Environment Agency's to monitor safety levels for heavy metals and dioxins
emitting from the chimney as well as ensuring that noise, light
pollution and HGV traffic volumes are
never exceeded.
WP2
spokesman Richard Storey stated they would commence next spring and will
invite local groups that were formally constituted to
join the Community Liaison group. He stated the project would be
operated responsibly within the planning and environmental permit
approvals.
The
EA have prosecuted L. A. Moore LTD, for polluting the river Axe and burying a tanker of dangerous chemicals on their site. The case was
heard on Mon 19th Oct at Yeovil Crown Court. L. A. Moore LTD will be
sentenced on 9th Nov at 2pm. The Maximum penalty is £20,000.
