Clean Power Properties (CPP) has withdrawn their appeal against refusal of planning permission for their incineration (pyrolysis) proposal at Bridgewater Road, Cross Green, Leeds.
This setback follows CPP’s decision in December 2014 to withdraw their planning application for Brierley Hill, Dudley following the Officer recommending refusal in line with the Environment Agency’s objection to the proposal.
This was not CPP’s first failure to gain planning permission for the former Brierley Hill Street Terminal. CPP lodged an earlier appeal (PINS ref 2211630) in February 2014 against the previous refusal by the planning committee in August 2013, but this was withdrawn by CPP in May 2014.
As a result of that withdrawal, CPP was ordered to pay local anti-incineration campaigners’ (Say No tO the Waste-site (SNOW*)) costs. CPP missed the deadline for such payment and a Court Order was issued. CPP has now paid SNOW* in full.
CPP’s environmental permit application for Brierley Hill, alongside five other CPP environmental permit applications, was withdrawn in November 2014.
CPP’s environmental permit application for Washwood Heath, Birmingham, remains under consideration by the Environment Agency (EA). The EA has raised a series of as yet unanswered questions, and are awaiting further information from CPP. Natural Resource Wales has also has unanswered questions for a similar proposal by CPP in Cwmgwili (South West Wales).
And in March 2015 Dr. Andrew N. Rollinson (Renewable Energy and Environmental Consultant at Blushful Earth) produced a critical review of CPP’s environmental permit application for Washwood Heath.
According to Shlomo Dowen, National Coordinator of the United Kingdom Without Incineration Network (UKWIN):
“As the assessment of the environmental permit application for Washwood Heath, produced for UKWIN by Dr. Rollinson  should make clear, CPP’s proposals are hard to take seriously as they are riddled with engineering mistakes and conflicting statements.”
“It appears that Clean Power Properties was prepared to submit planning and permitting applications without a clear understanding of what they were actually proposing. It is worrying if CPP is making claims regarding the potential impact of their experimental facilities based on a combination of guesswork and wishful thinking. Hopefully CPP will now think harder about their proposals and abandon their ill-considered ‘pyrolysis’ schemes altogether.”