Comments on: Delight in Derby as Sinfin incinerator denied planning permission http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/18/delight-in-derby-as-sinfin-incinerator-denied-planning-permission/ Fri, 18 May 2012 19:54:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Shlomo http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/18/delight-in-derby-as-sinfin-incinerator-denied-planning-permission/comment-page-1/#comment-644 Shlomo Thu, 07 Jan 2010 10:10:12 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1500#comment-644 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. 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.

]]> By: Bob Jnr http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/18/delight-in-derby-as-sinfin-incinerator-denied-planning-permission/comment-page-1/#comment-629 Bob Jnr Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:45:33 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1500#comment-629 Thanks Dororthy. Do you happen to know for what reasons GOEM were going to reject the application? Thanks Dororthy. Do you happen to know for what reasons GOEM were going to reject the application?

]]> By: Dorothy http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/18/delight-in-derby-as-sinfin-incinerator-denied-planning-permission/comment-page-1/#comment-628 Dorothy Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:34:43 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1500#comment-628 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 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

]]> By: Bob Jnr http://ukwin.org.uk/2009/12/18/delight-in-derby-as-sinfin-incinerator-denied-planning-permission/comment-page-1/#comment-624 Bob Jnr Mon, 21 Dec 2009 13:23:19 +0000 http://ukwin.org.uk/?p=1500#comment-624 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 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

]]>