Before the Planning Committee sat down to consider the application, the Government Office for the East Midlands (GOEM) issued the following direction:
In exercise of his powers under Article 14 of the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995, the Secretary of State hereby directs your council not to grant planning permission for this application without special authorisation. This Direction is issued to give the Government Office a further period in which to consider the proposals.
In the event Planning Committee members voted to spare Sinfin residents the prospect of a waste incinerator, although this decision could be subject to an appeal.
According to a local campaigner who was there to witness the decision, the plans for an incinerator were proposed by United Utilities alias Resource Recovery Solutions and were rejected on grounds of significant harm to the environment and residential amenity and the increases in air pollution (effects on Air Quality Management Area), plus of course the good old visual impact and more…
Once Derby City Council has uploaded the webcam file, you will be able to see the meeting for yourself at http://clients.westminster-digital.co.uk/dcc/player.aspx?EventID=1604
The local newspaper is reporting Protesters jubilant as incinerator plan goes up in smoke:
Campaigners opposing a proposed waste treatment plant cheered as councillors, citing health and traffic reasons, rejected the plans. Resource Recovery Solutions had hoped to build the plant in Sinfin Lane, Sinfin, to deal with waste collected from across Derbyshire. Now those plans have taken a blow after the company was refused permission by Derby City Council’s planning committee last night…Dozens of protesters gathered outside the Council House in Corporation Street before last night’s meeting.
Simon Bacon, a member of Sinfin, Spondon Against Incineration (SSAIN), said:
We are delighted with the result which was exactly what we wanted and the best thing for the city of Derby.
Councillor Baggy Shanker, who asked for the Secretary of State’s intervention along with fellow Sinfin councillor Robin Turner and Derby South MP Margaret Beckett, said it was “a victory for democracy“.
In a scathing attack on the RRS application, planning committee member Philip Hickson said he believed the public would be exposed to danger if there was a leak or malfunction at the plant and that vehicles coming to and from the plant would cause traffic and pollution problems. He added: “There is likely to be a threat of serious or irreversible environmental damage.“
I’m slightly confused. Did the Committee reject the Application because of the Direction from GOEM? Or were they going to reject it anyway, even without the Statement? If the Committee had approved the application, what powers does GOEM have to over-rule the Council? Can someone plese help explain this for me? Thanks
Hi Bob – there was a motion put to the committee to grant the application being mindful that the Secretary of State could have the last word, when it was sent to him for approval. This was not voted for by any of the Cllrs on the planning committee. Then a motion was put forward to refuse the application on the above mentioned grounds. This was voted for, so the app was rejected.
All should be made clearer when the webcast goes up too
Dorothy, Derby
Thanks Dororthy. Do you happen to know for what reasons GOEM were going to reject the application?
On 5th January 2010 Derby City Council rleased their decision document, which gives the following reasons for refusal:
1. The proposal would result in significant harm to the environment by virtue of the
emissions from the plant which would result in a severe detriment to residential
amenity in the area. including increasing public perception of associated health
risks. and accordingly. the proposal would be contrary to the saved policies W4.
W5.W6 and W8 of the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan and policies GD2.
GD5. EP14 and E12 of the adopted City of Derby Local Plan Review.
2. Traffic generated by the proposal would exacerbate existing traffic problems in the
area and would be likely to result in a severe detriment to the local Air Quality
Management Area which in turn would have a knock on effect on the air quality for
local residents. The proposal, would therefore. be contrary to the saved policies W2. W5, W6, VV8 and W10 of the Derby and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan and
GD5. G08. EP14. E12. T1. T4. T6. T7. T8 and T1 0 of the adopted City of Derby
Local Plan Review.
3. The size. bulk and design of the proposed building would rudely intrude into the
outlook from the adjoining residential properties and would be out of character with
the surrounding commercial/industrial buildings. As a consequence of this
shortcoming, the proposal would be contrary to the saved policy W7 of the Derby
and Derbyshire Waste Local Plan and G02. 804. 80S and E23 of the adopted
City of Derby Local Plan Review.
Further details available upon request.