erf planning.indd - Hampshire County Council

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Marchwood ERFThe Marchwood application was submitted in 1999 for afacility of similar capacity to that at Portsmouth. A featureof this proposal was the dome design on a waterfrontlocation which resonated with another structure beingbuilt in London. Unlike the other ERF applications therewas very little community opposition – objection letterstotalled 50 – the main concern being traffi c issues andinvestment to resolve them. Despite this, the environmental interest group CommunitiesAgainst Toxics (CATs) challenged the permission granted by the County Council onthe basis of interference with human rights through potential impacts on health. Theapplication for leave was granted by the High Court in 2001 but the challenge wasimmediately and comprehensively dismissed.The Marchwood ERF was commissioned in October 2004 – although the fi nal claddingtook some further time to complete. Extensive road improvements have taken place toaddress local community concerns but few issues now concern the liaison panel – themain remaining one being the redevelopment of the former municipal incinerator site onthe edge of the village. Today, there is evidence of pride in the design of the ERF as alocal feature.Obtaining planning permission for energy recovery facilities
Opposition groupsOpposition to the strategy was present throughout the two phases of generalconsultation and the site specifi c consultations leading up to determination of theplanning applications. As described previously, the nature of this opposition varied intime and with location.Despite their successful 1991 campaign, Portsmouth’s “Ban the Burner” group hadvirtually disbanded by the time of the new planning applications in 1998-99. Duringthe subsequent consultations and run up to the Portsmouth City Council PlanningCommittee meeting to determine the application, the group never again establisheditself to the same extent. Nevertheless, an opposition group did form in Portsmouthsupported by Friends of the Earth that campaigned more against an incinerator inPortsmouth than against incineration being included within the strategy. However, thegroup failed to engage the local newspapers in a campaign and media comment inPortsmouth was generally well-balanced.The most persistent and sometimes vociferous campaign group emerged during thefi rst phase of consultation. Based in Southampton, Communities against Toxics (CATs)began its campaign in 1994, leading to demonstrations at the then existing incineratorsthe following year. The group also made demonstrations at meetings of the CountyCouncil’s Public Protection Committee and achieved a continuous presence in theSouthampton local newspapers for several years. CATs focused almost exclusivelyon the Marchwood application and other than one foray into Portsmouth where theyparticipated in a private debate with HWS chaired by the City Council, CATs had virtuallyno presence away from the debate on the Waste Local Plan and the Marchwood ERFPlanning Application, and little community support. Although it was a member of CATswho challenged the granting of the Marchwood Planning Application, the campaigngroup’s presence gradually diminished after failing in the judicial review.In Basingstoke the opposition was of a different nature. The local MP adopted resistanceto the planning application at Chineham as a local party political issue and attempted tohave the planning permission overturned. Although there was local resistance from theoutset, the campaign against the ERF in the Basingstoke area was focused on the sitespecifi c consultations carried out by HWS. In consequence, public meetings becamevociferous and managed to make banner headlines in the local media. Although the localnewspaper identifi ed with the opposition group and announced a supporting campaign, itwas never suffi cient to infl uence the Planning Committee and permission to construct waspassed unanimously with just a single abstention.
Page 2 and 3: IntroductionOver the past ten years
Page 4 and 5: HistoryThe “Portsmouth Burner”H
Page 6 and 7: • Ensure the Hampshire, Portsmout
Page 8 and 9: Hampshire, Portsmouth and Southampt
Page 10 and 11: Chineham ERFThe fi rst planning app
Page 14 and 15: The way forwardThe commissioning of
Page 16 and 17: PartnershipAnother important featur
Page 18 and 19: DetailIn preparing the planning app
Page 20: EnergyRecoveryFacilitiesPrinted on

erf planning.indd - Hampshire County Council

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?