Reports have reached UKWIN from campaigners in Doncaster that Hatfield RAID (Residents Against Inappropriate Development) have won the latest stage of their campaign to prevent a waste incinerator being built near Hatfield.
Planning permission for the so-called Doncaster Energy from Waste (DEW) Project was refused as 5 Planning Committee members voted against the scheme and 2 abstained
The Doncaster Star is reporting that:
Residents who have battled plans for a waste processing site on their doorsteps are celebrating after the scheme was thrown out by Doncaster Council. Dozens of campaigners packed the council chamber at Mansion House as the borough’s planning committee told Avvail UK Ltd buildings which would be included in the scheme were too close to residential properties.
The scheme – called the Doncaster Energy from Waste project – is intended to sort and process rubbish such as metal, glass and plastic into usable products and would mean less going to landfill. A future phase would see fuel produced from other rubbish and used to create electricity.
Opponents of the scheme from the campaign group RAID – Residents Against Inappropriate Development – cheered and applauded as the vote rejecting the scheme was passed. They had collected 1,352 names on two petitions opposing the scheme.
RAID chairman Martin Wraith said: “Common sense has prevailed and residents for once have been listened to.”
Mr Wraith, addressing the council, spoke of his concerns if there had been a fire at the site, warning many homes in Stainforth may have to be evacuated. He also warned of their concerns over traffic, with 296 lorry journeys expected a day.
Ian Prosser, representing Avvail at the meeting, told councillors traffic generated by the scheme fell within limits already been laid out in 2003 when the site was given outline planning permission as Hatfield Power Park industrial estate. The site in on East Lane, Stainforth, close to Hatfield Colliery.
The DEW proposal was NOT an incinerator. It was actually a waste autoclaving facility.
In my understanding Bob the application was the first stage of a process that was to have produced Solid Recovered Fuel / Refuse Derived Fuel for burning in an incinerator (i.e. a facility covered by the Waste Incineration directive) – so to stop the “front end” is equivalent to preventing an incinerator from being built on the site…
Yes, you are right. The application discussed at the Committee meeting was for a waste processing/autoclaving facility, which MAY HAVE BEEN followed by a future application for a waste burning facility. However, as I understand it, the concerns of local residents were primarily related to the size of the facility and the volume of traffic that would result. I believe they, nor the Committee, had few objections to autoclaving, which is a steam process and does not involve incineration.