Representations received regarding Buttington Quarry - ERF

The list below includes all those who submitted representations.

SourceRepresentation - click on an item to see more details
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Representations received from stopbuttingtonincinerator.com website (1)
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Representations received from stopbuttingtonincinerator.com website (2)
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Representations received from stopbuttingtonincinerator.com website (3)
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Representations received from stopbuttingtonincinerator.com website (4)
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Representations received from stopbuttingtonincinerator.com website (5)
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Webb, Julia
"Dear Planning Inspectorate... Incineration of waste - in this day and age - is not commensurate with any targets to get global warming to reduce/stop. This application should not be approved. As we are very nearby residents (we can hear the earth-moving, ground works in the quarry) and members of the general public... we don’t - of course - understand all the science... more qualified people can explain the utter inappropriateness of this application. It’s proposed very near many established rural homes (and near in fact Welshpool - different wind directions and all that) and a school, such a plan should never come to fruition... never. This beautiful valley (which has inversion and regularly keeps the atmosphere trapped in the valley - a fact which should never be ignored)... well this valley is home to so many families and a school, so not only would there be health affecting pollution from the chimney - but pollution from vehicles importing waste from out of this area. Incinerated waste will be totally unacceptable to the world soon - it already is an outmoded/old fashioned method/operation (and the Welsh Governing body seems to be thinking this way now which is fantastic)... so there is no longevity in this proposal. Nothing should be approved in this 21st Century which affects the well-being of people - very especially children who should never be subjected to such pollution. Also never should anything happen to the detriment of the natural environment or - as mentioned - people’s health - for the sake of a financial gain. “Wrong idea and definitely wrong place” There is no local problem which needs this incinerator - and importing waste and then burning it - from elsewhere - is unimaginative. A very large number of people feel strongly about this application. I hope they let you know. My husband and I are actually extremely worried [***REDACTED***]about this. Your best attentions and very logical/sensible and scientifically appropriate ruling would be very much appreciated. Thank you. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Miles, Michael
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Wright, A
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Boyes, Clare
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Boyes, Simon
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Jowett, Clare
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Buttington Incinerator Impact Group (BIIG)
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Gill, Delwyn & Shelagh
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Jones, Steven
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Ritchie
" I do not agree with the planning proposal of the Buttington incinerator IT SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN PLANNING PERMISSION The facts are The welsh government have set a new memorandum to halt on ANY new large scale plans that was with immediate effect in MARCH 21 that there is NO need for the incinerator as it no longer fits in with the forward plan to be carbon free Can you please tell me how you can even consider this if you have made a decision NO LARGE SCALE INCINERATORS ?? Air pollution from incinerators with researchers from the Birmingham university’s KILLS OVER 8.7 million people a year FACT waste from burning is NOT low carbon We don’t even have garden burn fires any more so why would we even consider this This incinerator will harm people and the environment, the Welsh government want zero carbon FACT that can be achieved if the incinerator is REJECTED FACT The incinerators burn anything which is NOT MOTORED as most of the waste comes from private providers and are not accountable for disclosing what is in the waste Fact this is unacceptable when there are better ways with reducing plastic alone that incinerators are not needed A lot of issues make this incinerator not viable and NOT WANTED ITS close to a school FACT This will effect the health of the children DO WE WANT OUR CHILDREN TO DIE YOUNG ? We are burning rubbish that we don’t need to THE WAY FORWARD IS TO RECYLE The fact is N H S Drs have been to see the prime minister with all the evidence that these incinerators cause serious long term health issues [***REDACT***] health conditions and any new pregnancies are resulting in Still births FACT In areas of incinerator there have been a considerable amount of still births FACT FACT broad energy have not considered the road and Cefn bridge which can not take any more lorries there are endless accidents and deaths On there plans they do not show the bridge but they would be using this every day FACT Broad Engegy have not despite asking them 4 times about the removal of the Ash which some WILL be TOXIC how are they going to transport it ? How many lorries a day will it be to remove the ASH ? WHY ARE THEY NOT ACCOUNTABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION You need to find out the answer FACT the local community home owners property will decrease in value , leaving most residents unable to move THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FACT The Welsh government plans do not include incinerators FACT the 300 hundred jobs is NOT TRUE specialist workers would be brought in to erect the incinerator they are not local jobs The location is WRONG Trewern has eversions most days and stay in the valley and don’t disperse so the TOXINS from the Chimmy would be in that eversion and so the toxics will stay in the air effecting the health of the local residents even more FACT "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Mclaughlin
"I object to the Buttington Incinerator because of air quality concerns. During time of high pressure, the inversion keeps the air trapped in the valley - I can sometimes smell the smoke from a small fire at the opposite end of the valley. I believe the residents of this valley will suffer health problems if the incinerator goes ahead."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Kitching, Mr & Mrs S
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Deb Ritchie
"I TOTALLY DISAGREE WITH THE BUILDING OF AN INCINERATOR IN BUTTINGTON it is going against your own policy of not wanting then or needed in them So you can’t agree It causes so many health complications. CANCER. STILL BIRTH LUNG PROBLEM AND MANY MORE N H S DR them selves have factual evidence to support this The road is dangerous already with out hundreds lorries loaded with waste that is NOT CHECKED THE CEFN BRIDGE IS NOT BUILT TO TAKE THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THE HOUSE IN THE AREA WILL FACT. WILL FALL IN VALUE TRAPPING PEOPLE IN THE HOMES AND UNABLE TO MOVE YOUR DECISION WILL THEM BE TOTALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LIFES OF THESE PEOPLE ITS TO CLOSE TO THE SCHOOL IT WILL KILL*** REDACTED*** CHILDREN THE SMELL THE TOXIC ASH WHICH WILL NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE WHY ARE YOU ALLOWING BROARD ENERGY TO NOT SAY HOW MANY LORRIES WILL COME GO WITH THIS TOXIC ASH THIS IS BEEN INCREDIBLE INCOMPETENT OF YOUR DEPT NOT TO ENSURE TO HAVE THIS INFORMATION WALES NEEDS TO STAY CLEAN IT WILL EFFECT THE HEALTH OF PEOPLE FOR MANY YEARS TO COME IF THE DECISION IS MADE TO BUILD IT. THE OUTCOME WITH BE CATASTROPHIC THINK DONT AGREE THERE ARE NO LOCAL JOBS ITS SPECIAL CONTRACTOR WHO COME IN FRIM ABOARD YOU CANT BREACH YOUR OWN BILL ON WANTING WAKES TO BE CARBON FRIENDLY RECYCLING IS THE WAY FORWARD BAN THE PLASTIC. THIS IS WERE A LOTVOF THE RUBBISH IS COMING FROM IF YOU HAVE POWER THEM DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT I DO NOT WANT THIS INCINERATOR FOR ME AND FUTURE GENERATIONS "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter hillcox
"To whom it may concern, Ref dns/3214813 . I believe that the proposed incinerator, given its potential capacity will need to import from a very wide area waste , there is certainly insufficient waste material available locally . Inevitably much of that waste will be sourced from England and will have travelled considerably long distances at an environmental cost . The proposed development will have a wide and varied impact on not only on the immediate community but the wider area as well , in that respect I fully concur with the findings of the locally formed Buttington Incinerator Impact Group, and wish you to include those comments as part of my representation. I am sure that given that the inspectorate are knowledgeable with regard to this type of application there is little point in reminding them of the issues that others will have obviously already raised. However. With respect what the inspectorate will not have is sufficient knowledge of Just how obscene and inappropriate it is to even consider such a proposal in what is a very beautiful area of countryside, the area is the gateway to Wales for visitors that have travelled from the West Midlands and beyond , we welcome them by tradition , however we should not be welcoming their industrial waste for incineration.that should be dealt with by them at a local level . May I thank you for including this submission for your consideration. Yours sincerely, Peter hillcox ."
Members of the Public/Businesses
LAURIE RITCHIE
" I wish to object to the proposed building of an Industrial Waste Incinerator by Border Energy at site of the Buttington Quarry. My reasons are as follows. The Welsh Government have issued a moratorium on the building of Industrial Waste Incinerators above 10 mega watts – in light of this why is the Planning Authority allowing Border Energy to proceed with the application ? The proposed capacity of 150,000 tonnes per annum far exceeds the amount of Industrial Waste produced on the whole of Wales – the feedstock will therefore have to be transported by large HGV vehicles from across the border adding greatly to the carbon emissions from HGV's in both countries. The feedstock necessary to burn 150,000 tonnes per annum will involved approx 70 delivery vehicles per day using the A458 which is already running at full capacity The route will involve the use of 2 very narrow bridges 1 over the River Severn – the other over the main Mid Wales to Shrewsbury railway line at Cefn which has seen a regular number of accidents resulting in road closures and delays. The number of HGV movements does not include those necessary burnt waste from the site – despite repeated requests to Border Energy as the possible toxic content and amount of waste I have been unable to obtain any information. What does the term Industrial Waste cover ? - will all incoming feedstock be checked for content as many industrial products give off toxic fumes when incinerated – what is the for example a consignment of asbestos waste being not being declared or checked prior to incineration How will the flue gas be monitored for levels of toxicity in the local area as the prevailing winds will carry the gases over Trewern – Criggion and possibly as far as Middleton – the area is also prone to inversion with cloud levels very low over the local hills thereby trapping any flue gas for long periods of time. Also in the direct path for the prevailing wind and within approx 1mile for the flue stock is the local Junior School of about 150 children ***REDACTED*** I have no doubt the smell that is associated with such industrial plants will – especially in the summer months be such that any outdoor activity will be rendered impossible – we are not even allowed garden bonfires in Powys so to allow such an amount of atmospheric pollution The Welsh Government has stated the its aim is for a Low Carbon environment in the near future how the incineration of 150,000 tonnes of industrial waste into the atmosphere will Not contribute to this target aim is beyond me. The effect on local employment will be very small – any construction work would have to be carried out by specialist contractors due to the nature of work involved THE HEATH ISSUES FOR US ALL LOCALLY cancers still births for the future generation Fact N H S Drs have lobbed the government with factual information from incineration that cause deaths THIS CAN NOT BE INGONED Mr Ritchie "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ian Thompson
"I have previously submitted my comments but have not received acknowledgement. I therefore attach my personal comments once again. Re Planning Application Ref. DNS/3214813 I wish to register my formal objection to the current Broad Energy planning application (ref DNS/3214813) on the following grounds: - the proposed size/capacity of the facility is entirely disproportionate to any measure of local need. It is manifestly the case, based on published data, that the bulk of the waste to be incinerated would have to be sourced from beyond Powys (and indeed Wales). The catchment identified by the applicant incorporates a significant swathe of England, not least the West Midlands and Staffordshire. It thereby fails to satisfy key formal planning approval criteria that are based on “proximity” to the sources of waste. - the facility as proposed would be visible for miles around and would have a significant visual impact on what is predominantly a rural landscape that is also promoted as “the gateway to Wales”. This point has been recognised in comments made by the Design Commission For Wales that are in the public domain following a meeting held with the applicant in July 2020. - the valley between the Breidden Hills and the Long Mountain/Cefn Digoll creates its own micro-climate with frequent observable “temperature inversions” whereby cold air descending from the surrounding hills condensates and is trapped in the valley. Regardless of the height of the proposed stack, local experience is that emissions from the proposed incinerator would inevitably be driven down into the valley to the detriment of the village of Trewern with its primary school and the village settlements further to the east. There is therefore a significant concern in relation to public health. - the key highway network that would be used by heavy vehicles accessing the proposed site is recognised as being over-stretched and in urgent need of significant up-grade. The proposed facility would increase the pressure on the existing road network to the further detriment of the village settlements through which the key trunk roads pass. - recent published studies indicate that incineration plants are not “low-carbon” [***REDACT***] but rather are likely to produce one tonne of carbon for every tonne of waste incinerated, always depending on the mix of waste to be incinerated. Furthermore, it is clear from nationally published data that the UK is in danger of incineration capacity exceeding available waste within the next 5-10 years with the clear implication that this will create a dependency on continued incineration to the detriment of increased recycling and the “circular economy”. This is in direct conflict with stated Welsh Government policy. Indeed the stated Welsh Government policy of placing a moratorium on any further large-scale incineration capacity should ensure that this application is rejected out of hand. [***REDACT***] I contend that for the reasons stated above that this application should be rejected. Ian Thompson 4th May 2021 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kate Roberts on behalf of Mr & Mr D G Thomas
" To The Planning Inspectorate, Planning ref: DNS/3214813 I am writing to you regarding to the above planning application for the incinerator at Buttington Quarry. We strongly object to the incinerator being built at this location. The entrance and exit to the Quarry is across the road from our property SY21 8SU this is used 24hrs a day already? We have had serious accidents over the years outside our entrance and the Quarry entrance which include several accidents that have knocked our bricked wall in our garden down and the debris hitting our house. Plus there have been plenty more accidents along the length of the A458 even with a 50mph speed restrictions applied. We are concerned about the increasing danger of the traffic coming in and out of this entrance that will occur with this incinerator proposal. We are also concerned of all the fumes and smells that will come with this incinerator as this will have a big impact *** REDACTED*** along with the price of our property. Kind Regards Mr & Mrs D G Thomas "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Welsh Government - A458 Highway Authority
"Please see attachment / Gweler yr atodiad"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Doody
"To whom it may concern. I am very concerned about the proposed incinerator at Buttington. The proposed site is very close to Buttington Trewern primary school (machinery clearing the site could easily been seen from the school playground) which is a thriving school with around 150 pupils on role. The pollution and carbon emissions produced by the incinerator could seriously affect the health of the children attending the school, as well as the residents of Cefn, Buttington Trewern and Middletown. It is concerning the villages of Trewern and Middletown are not even marked on the map showing the proposed site of the incinerator. Wales has a good record of recycing particularly in Mid-Wales, improving recycing facilities and reducing waste is a more environmental sustainable way to deal with waste. The Welsh Government have placed a moratorium on new large scale incinerator developments, so why is this incinerator planning application being processed. As Powys does not produce enough domestic rubbish to warrant an incinerator, waste will have to be brought in from all over the country this will increase the number of HGV's that will be travelling over Cefn bridge where lots of accidents already happen, damaged to the bridge recently meant months of traffic lights and delays. These HGV's will be travelling past the school giving off carbon monoxide which is harmful to children's health and development. How will ash from the site be disposed of as it will be toxic and could harm the environment. If the ash is to be taken away probably some distance, this will raise the carbon footprint of the site something that the UK as a whole is trying to reduce. The site is situated in beautiful countryside, Mid-Wales relays heavily on tourism an incinerator on the side of the road near Welshpool signposted the gateway to Mid-Wales is not an inviting sight, and is likely to mean holidaymakers will not stay in the area. Altogether I object to the proposed incinerator as the site is too close to a primary school and residential areas and could effect the physical and mental health of children and residents alike.The site is not economical as waste will have to travel large distances to get to the site and the same for ash leaving the site. Reducing and recycing waste have more environmental sustainability. The incinerator will also have a negative effect on the beautiful countryside reducing tourism. Yours sincerely Christine "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Jenkins
"Ref: DNS/3214813 Dear Sir or Madam, We are writing to confirm our support for this innovative project at Buttington Quarry. As we move towards a zero carbon future and reduce the amount of vehicles on the road the demand for electricity will increase. Unfortunately, I do not see a fast reduction in the amount of waste that we are creating and something other than landfill needs to be used to manage this material. We have reviewed the documents available on the developers website, although a large proportion of these are technical, I found the non technical summary and visual files interesting and informative. The area of the proposed development will see much needed local jobs and create an infrastructure that will support the local area. We are [***REDACT***] pleased to see innovation in dealing with our waste material by a forward thinking group of companies. Yours Sincerely Mr & Mrs R Jenkins "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia & Phillip Wynne
"Dear Sir/Madame We are writing to you to express our comments and concerns on the application for ERF at Buttington Quarry. The pollution generated by the incinerator of this size, whilst considered harmless by ‘expert’ modelling, doesn’t take into account the unique topography, with regular inversions which would trap the pollution around the school and villages. This will have a detrimental affect on peoples health and wellbeing. As the Welsh Government, and people in Wales have been vigilantly dedicated to reducing waste, and so, according to the business modelling of Broad Energy there will be a need for most of the waste to be imported from . This does not seem a plausible reason for Broad Energy to have this incinerator set up in this location. The incinerator should be on an industrial park, near the waste with good traffic links. The local traffic links to the incinerator are poor and the road approaching the development could be classed as dangerous. There are two bridges either side of the approach to the development both very narrow two lane double bends and require a limit down to 5-10 miles upon their approach and traversing. There have been numerous accidents on the Cefn bridge, and often months of one lane traffic during times of awaiting repair and during repair. They are both difficult bridges for any large vehicles to manoeuvre along, let alone the HGV traffic which will be used for the transportation for the incinerator, and it should be pointed out that there are no other routes in order to get to the incinerator, all of this will cause a great deal of difficulty and danger for everyday traffic. If absolutely necessary an incinerator should be on an industrial park, near the waste it needs to dispose of and with good traffic links. The developers haven’t taken into account the fact that waste will have to be shipped over long distances and the infrastructure around Buttington won’t be able to handle this kind of industry. Also, it is most unlikely that the incinerator will give gainful employment to local people, as it will need specialist developers and operators. Incinerators are not at all ‘low carbon’ as the developers suggest and produce almost as much carbon as a coal-fired power station, and play a detrimental role in climate change. Along with this taking into account the amount of haulage this development is going to ensue for its everyday use it beggars belief that it is even being considered at all. Yours Sincerely Patricia & Phill Wynne"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Gaynor Hand
"I have a number of objections to the incinerator, but my main three are as follows: Firstly, my understanding is that waste and recycling should be collected from the surrounding area, it should not be being brought in to a disposal centre from other areas. I don't see how this applies to the Buttington incinerator. Powys is the largest county in Wales with the smallest population and has the best waste and recycling performance already, so where is all the waste coming from? It's clearly going to be transported in from not only other areas within Wales from over the border with England. This surely goes completely against the whole ethos of the process, wracking up long road journeys and producing all the pollution that goes with them to get the waste to incinerator? At a time when we're all being told we have to reduce our carbon footprint, how does that make any sense? Secondly, I strongly object to the fumes and pollution that will be belching out in to the atmosphere less than a mile from a primary school, two substantial residental developments and numerous other residential dwellings and farms. This is not a sparsely populated area, the plan is to insert the incinerator into an area where it will have residential premises all around it's perimeter, it is not in the middle of open ground. The pollution is a major concern, I cannot believe that this can be considered acceptable for the local community. There are so many much more suitable locations, it's incredible to me that the middle of village would be even considered a possibility. And thirdly, the access is terrible. The A458 is very poor, it hasn't been developed in over a hundred years despite being the main arterial route into mid Wales. There are no stretches of dual carriageway between Shrewsbury and the incinerator site, there are few places for overtaking and the road is very busy all the time, particularly during the summer months with holiday makers. The railway bridge in Trewern is a major black spot, there was a minor accident that caused damage to the bridge before Christmas which resulted in temporary traffic lights and single file traffic for four months this year, the same thing happened last year and the road is frequently closed in the summer due to accidents on the other side of the bridge. The access to the incinerator site itself is shocking, there have been so many accidents there since the Speed Courier company has been there, not to mention the very many near misses. The original document stated four lorries an hour entering and leaving the site, but that will increase and the local road infrastructure is just not suitable for a constant stream of heavy vehicles. The inconvenience, pollution and increase in traffic for the local community is not, in my opinion, acceptable. I could go on but I think these three points alone are more than enough. I'm aware that major work on the site has already started, which is shocking considering the permission has not even been granted yet. The owners are obviously very confident that the planning permission deal is done but I do sincerely hope that you will consider the objections favourably. For myself, [***REDACT***] I do really feel for the young families living here who are genuinely worried for their children's health and futures, worry which I'm sure is more than justified. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Ruth Jones
"I am writing to express my considerable objections regarding the proposal to develop a biomass incinerator at Buttington Quarry, Welshpool, by Broad Energy My family and I purchased a property less than a mile from the quarry, and was attracted primarily due to to its proximity to Shrewsbury as well as the wonderful views, rural setting and community involved way of life we as a young family could achieve here. However, the proposal by Broad energy to develop the quarry into a Biomass incinerator, has completely, turned our dreams of our forever house, at the gateway to Wales in the Powys hills, into a possible death trap for us and our young children – this might sound rather dramatic, but in reality, when you read about the health risks associated with Biomass facilities, such as outlined in “the Health Effects of Waste Incinerators – 4th report for the British Society for Ecological Medicine” our lives are at risk! It is proven that living close to a biomass facility increases the risk of adult and childhood cancer, increases mortality rates as well as increasing the risk of birth defects in newborns. The fact that a primary school is located less than a mile from the proposed site, and the significant health risks that it brings to all children, is a risk [***REDACT***] Added to the very considerable health risks, upon which I have only just glossed over, the infrastructure required to support the Biomass development would lead to significant additional traffic to an already very busy and accident prone stretch of road. The road runs right outside the local primary school, which is again less than a mile away from the proposed site. Added to this, there are numerous tourism based businesses in this area, including caravan parks etc, and the increase in traffic pollution, visual pollution as well as health risks are all likely to have a significant detrimental impact on them. I do not see that the development of a Biomass Incinerator will bring any significant benefit to the local area or community, as there is certainly very little long term employment opportunities for the employment demographic local to this area of Powys. I am concerned that as a country, Wales is one of the top recycling countries in the world, therefore is there really a need for incineration, particularly as, as a county, Powys residents produce under 20.000 tonnes of non-recyclable waste, which is not enough to feed this incinerator? Consequently, waste will have to be shipped in, via road, from other areas of Wales, but more than likely from England. How does burning this waste, fit with the Welsh governments policy of aiming to achieve zero CO2 emissions, surely this is not a direction we should be heading!. Burning waste, rather than increasing recycling and reducing single use plastic usage, is certainly not a sustainable answer, particularly if the drive to recycle continues, where will waste have to come from? Can a further Biomass incinerator be sustainable, when we already have an existing Biomass facility in Shrewsbury (approx 20 miles away - located on an industrial complex) and a smaller facility in Welshpool. Added to this, incineration does not remove waste it simply turns it into another arguably more hazardous form and in fact the ash produced amounts to 30-50% by volume of the original waste. Is this really the best way to get rid of our rubbish?? The Buttington Quarry, is situated in an area of outstanding natural beauty, and even one area in the quarry is designated as an SSI. The development of such a large Biomass facility is just going to add further visual pollution to an area that is renown for its rural outlook and quiet way of life. Contamination from the facility, even down to the very small particle contamination, will inevitably get into the food chain through ground contamination/air pollution and in the long term this will have a detrimental effect on the productivity of the surrounding land and its livestock and as a consequence on the livelihood of our farming community, upon which Powys is renown. Our property borders the quarry, so as a family we are very concerned that during both the construction phase and once it is operational, we will be subject to additional noise and light pollution as well as the associated smells associated with non recyclable rubbish. The damage to our local ecosystem and biodiversity that we currently experience is also a significant worry. [***REDACT***]the local primary school, will be within a mile of the incinerator constantly, and as such, this has caused significant worry and stress [***REDACT***] I am really disappointed that this proposal is actually progressing baring in mind the Welsh governments moratorium on new incinerator projects. Also, despite raising a number of questions to Broad Energy during the consultation period, firstly during the zoom consultation meetings, which were ignored, and then separately via email, we have still not received any responses to our queries and questions. This is extremely disappointing, particularly as we are direct neighbours to the proposed development site. To conclude, we are 100% against this proposal, and do not see any benefits, and therefore wish to express our objections as outlined above. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tom Forrester
"Dear Sir / Madam I write to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed incinerator at Buttington. As someone [***REDACT***] with a strong background in Planning and Sustainability I feel I can provide useful informative comments about the planning application and how from every perspective it is a really bad idea. Let's look at each angle: Council lease. Wolverhampton City Council have struggled to improve their recycling rates over the last 10 years. They have a 25 year contract with Veolia that makes them obliged to send waste for incineration. If they don't meet the tonnage agreement they are obliged to compensate the company. The result is that recyclable waste such as cardboard is often DIVERTED from recycling and burnt instead to meet the targets. Unfortunately because of the 25 year lease they're now locked into this agreement so residents' waste is being burnt rather than recycled. National Economy and Tourism If the Buttington burner goes ahead an extra 100 HGV vehicles will be on the road. This is the main tourist route from England to the Welsh west coast including attractions such as Barmouth. It is a long windy road with little chance for overtaking. When tourists realise that their frequent trips to Barmouth may involve getting stuck behind slow moving HGVs they are very likely to decide to visit other seaside towns avoiding the A483. Has a feasibility study been done to establish the economic effect of all these extra lorries and how it will effect not just Barmouth but all the towns and villages along this route if people stop using this road? Local Economy and Character Buttington, Trewern and Middletown are already affected by the noise of the quarry and the road. To approve this application will show a complete disdain for the local residents, affect house prices in a negative way, increase noise, pollution and overall quality of life for local residents. Please note I'm not a local resident so my views are more impartial but I can see the detrimental impact this will cause. Transport and Pollution In Caerphilly some houses were knocked down because the pollution levels were deemed too harmful for residents. This was decided by the Welsh government. How is it then acceptable or appropriate for you to consider approving this application to allow an additional 100 HGVs to go up and down the road? Remember this will be operational from 7am to 7pm on weekdays and 9am to 5pm on Saturdays. So the noise and air pollution will be constant for these poor residents and other local villages and towns along the HGV route for six days a week. CO2 targets Labour and Plaid Cymru often criticise the Conservatives for their [***REDACT***] environmental policies [***REDACT***]. It is palpably clear that incineration is not the answer to our waste or our energy problems. We need better energy efficiency targets, smarter homes and buildings, and greater investment in renewable energy such as wind, wave, solar and geothermal. Combine that with better recycling, biodigesters and a REDUCTION in waste such as food and packaging in the first place and suddenly we have a roadmap for a more sustainable Wales for future generations. If you approve this application you will lock the next Welsh generation into a burner that'll mean more waste, more CO2, more traffic for another 25 years. Once you make that decision that's it. On every level, EVERY level, this is a bad idea. The only people this will benefit is big business. I fail to see how anyone can possibly see this as a good idea for once all these factors are taken into account. The creation of around 30 jobs does not justify all the negative consequences of this proposal. Incineration certainly hasn't helped Wolverhampton and it certainly won't help Wales. Regards, Tom "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Chris Kitching
"[***REDACT***] I have the following concerns: 1. Fumes - I don't believe that having this incinerator in the local vicinity of this school is safe and it is putting [***REDACT***] health at risk [***REDACT***] I also believe that is is not allowed for a development such as this around schools for older children so why is this allowed around younger more vulnerable children? 2. Traffic - It is my opinion that this development can only lead to increased traffic in the area which again I feel is not safe around young children "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mrs Sandra Kitching
"I would like to raise an objection to the Buttington incinerator which is to be situated right next to the school [***REDACT***]. My objection is for the health and safety of [***REDACT***]all the pupiils attending the school..Not only can it be detrimental to their health spending the day right next to the incinerator but it will also attract more traffic on the road right next to the school which again cannot be good. I understand an incinerator would not be allowed next to a school for older children and fail to understand why therefor it can be allowed next to young children, this makes no sense to me..I hope the proposal can be reconsidered for the good of everyone,especially the young children involved."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Noel Kitching
"I would like to object to the proposed construction of the Buttington incinerator near to the Infant school [***REDACT***], I cannot help but be concerned for the health of the small children at the school this will increase traffic in the area, I believe that they cannot locate these near a senior school and cannot see how it is ok near an infant school, Noel Kitching"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patricia & Phill Wynne
"Incase we had not made it clear in our previous comments. We wish to Strongly Object to Buttington Quarry."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Buttington trewern Playgroup
"Our pre school is in very close proximity to the proposed incinerator, we have 23 children aged 3 to 4 who attend over the week, many of the children have asthma and require inhalers to help relieve their symptoms. As a result of the coronavirus pandemic and in order to help limit the spread of the virus we spend the majority of the day outdoors with the children,when we are indoors we have all the windows open to help limit the spread of the virus also and we feel that the potential poor air quality generated by the proposed incinerator would be detrimental to the children's health. Cefn Bridge is a notorious accident blackspot and increased traffic generated by the proposed generator will increase the likelihood of accidents which are highly likely to involve families using the school or local residents."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Donna Saunders
"I object to the building of an incinerator in Buttington ref: Buttington Quary- ERF, DNS/3214813. An incinerator will have an impact on the air quality and could cause possible health conditions. It will also mean an increase in traffic on the roads (lorries) with the transportation of waste to the site which will also cause air pollution. It will have a huge negative effect on the environment. We should be striving to produce less waste rather than finding different methods of handling waste. It appears to go against policies for a greener way of life which the government is trying to introduce people to. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Michael Ashton
"Response ***REDCACTED***.’ The developers have started with a location and attempted to make it fit their plans. The site is in the wrong place. Transport of the raw waste and resulting ‘ash’ constitutes a major problem. Access would be on a constricted road that suffers from traffic jams during the tourist season. It is close to a notorious bridge, an accident black spot on the A458. Cefn Bridge has been the source of crashes, bridge repairs, traffic-light hold-ups and resulting air pollution close to existing residential and school developments. The ideal site should be in an open, flat area in the lee of any human settlement. It should have transport access (road or rail) that is easy to develop and maintain. Pollutants would be safely dispersed into the atmosphere rather than confined within a bottle-neck of hillsides which can concentrate the emissions that are likely to be further retained by the geography and local meteorological conditions. Many of the houses of Trewern and Middletown, the primary school and caravan site are directly down-wind of the prevailing air movements. It is dubious whether the proposed flue would be adequate to stop localised deposition of pollutants. This is the wrong place. It is on the edge of the Welsh map, nowhere near sources of urban and industrial waste material. As a Welsh initiative it appears counter intuitive. How far will the transport have to travel, with its increased carbon footprint? Does the Welsh government need extra incineration at this time? How much material will have to be carried in from England just to make the operation seem viable? And if the sorting and recycling provisions are improved in the near future, will there be a continued need for this plant? Is there a real need for this facility? Will it do the right job in the short or long term? Is it in the right place? At the moment it appears to be a Procrustean design: shrink the baby to fit the pram rather than buy a pram to fit the baby. It is a bad location. John Michael Ashton 17/5/21"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Matt Goodall
"To whoever it may concern, I am writing to voice my objection to the Buttington Incinerator in the strongest possible terms. Should this application be approved it will make a mockery of the ‘Towards Zero Waste’ policy and send a clear message that the Welsh Government are not taking the challenge of climate change seriously. That the application was submitted after the moratorium on incinerators in Wales was announced, only further enforces the mixed messaging and degrades the commitments already made. Powys has one of the highest recycling levels in the UK but this application aims to turn Buttington into the waste disposal center of not just Mid Wales, but parts of England as well. The application freely admits domestic and commercial waste of all kinds will need to be transported from a huge radius to keep the plant running 24/7. That the location was ever selected is baffling – it’s less than one mile away from a primary school, aside a valley which is known to ‘trap’ air by the process of inversion, and is only accessible by a completely inappropriate road. The alternative site search in the application appears to be written retrospectively to fit the Buttington Quarry and ignores the many factors that make it completely unsuitable for an incinerator. As we face what is undoubtedly going to be a climate crisis, pumping more carbon into the atmosphere so that a corporation – set up specifically to develop this monstrosity – can make profits from carbon creation makes zero sense now and could be judged very harshly in the not too distant future. This incinerator plans to be the first impression for many tourists travelling to Wales, and be a constant source of mental, and evidence suggests, physical harm for the community surrounding it. I trust you will do the right thing by the people of Powys and refuse this application. Yours faithfully, Matt Goodall"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Peter Falloon
"I would like to formally object to the planned Buttington Incinerator (Ref DNS/3214813) on the following grounds: The future of waste management does not lie with incineration and contradicts Wales’ future commitments to its Towards Zero Waste policy. The site of Buttington Quarry is not correct for processing waste of any significant amount from Wales and will see it receiving waste from over the border. The A458 is an unsuitable road for the increase in HGV traffic which would be required to constantly supply the plant with material to burn. There is a primary school less than a mile from the site in Trewern, vital to a community who would be devastated should the application be approved. It’s fair to say Trewern is also the gateway to Mid Wales and sees many, many tourists travelling through. Should their first impression of Wales be an incinerator chimney, it’s difficult to justify how this could ever be positive and reflect well on Wales as a destination for tourism. The company behind the application have tried to ‘greenwash’ the proposal and claim that incineration is in some way an environmentally responsible act. Burning waste is a profit making exercise and this is precisely why the company was formed. The people potentially affected by this incinerator, myself included deserve better and Wales as a country has more to offer than becoming the waste processing plant for England and a gold mine for Broad Energy and their international partners. Please refuse this application and fully commit to the moratorium on incinerators in Wales. Yours sincerely, Peter Falloon"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
David Burrows
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Dr and Mrs Owen
"The Planning Inspectorate Crown Buildings Cathays Park Cardiff CF10 3NQ 18th May 2021 Dear Sirs, Ref: Buttington Quarry – ERF, DNS/3214813 We object to the proposed incinerator for a variety of reasons. 1. The location of the proposed Buttington Incinerator is totally inappropriate and a significant health hazard to the local populations of Buttington and Trewern being sited towering above a thriving primary school and housing estate popular with young families. Another housing estate is close by in the low lying area of Trewern and vulnerable to the toxic environment that would emit from the incinerator. 2. If the situation were reversed and the incinerator was already in place no school or houses would be allowed to be built in the area due to health concerns about toxic waste polluting the atmosphere. 3. Trewern and the A458 lie in the valley between The Long Mountain and Moel y Golfa and due to this it is prone to lingering mists and heavier particles cannot easily escape. Waste from the incinerator would thus gather and linger with detrimental effects on all of us. 4. We are lucky enough to live in a listed Georgian estate extending across both sides of the A458 which over the years we have built up into being a significant local asset with a thriving number of visitors who we are happy to welcome for a range of charities including those who visit through the National Garden Scheme. You can see this by searching Maesfron Hall and Gardens on the internet. The presence of the incinerator would have a very damaging impact on all the work we have done over the years. 5. The whole country having suffered so badly due to Covid 19 it is amazing that the government is even considering allowing the Buttington incinerator to be given planning permission and endangering the future health of the local population and in particular the primary school children living under it for approximately 39 weeks each year. 6. This area is becoming increasingly popular as a good healthy place to live as families look to provide a better environment in the light of the Covid effect. Hence a gigantic incinerator spewing out toxins is an insane concept. 7. There is no need for such a facility and all efforts should be concentrated in reducing waste and not encouraging its production by permitting incinerators such as the one proposed. 8. The main A458 road whilst called a “trunk road” because of its geographical importance to both Wales and England is in very poor condition in the Buttington/Trewern area. Powys County Council had to try and repair the road surface outside our property earlier this year following an incident involving a lorry on the instructions of the North & Mid Wales Trunk Road Agent and described the road surface as “shot” due to the amount of traffic and in particular the high volume of heavy goods vehicles day after day and that whilst they did what they could to make it safer it was just a sticking plaster and substantial professional repairs were required. Hence it would be at the least foolish and potentially negligent to encourage a higher concentration of large lorries to have to use the road which would be inevitable if the incinerator was allowed. 9. The A458 road in the Buttington/Trewern area has a poor safety record as it is a narrow road which has to be treated as a main trunk road due to the abandonment of plans to build a much needed Buttington/Trewern bypass. In addition it has two dangerous narrow bridges a short distance either side of the proposed incinerator site. The Cefn railway bridge has had two accidents involving lorries over the past couple of years meaning that it had to be restricted to one way traffic controlled by traffic lights for a considerable period of time pending repairs. It is quite possible that a vehicle could come off the bridge and land on a moving train or the track and the more traffic there is the more likely there will be more serious accidents. 10. The A458 is likely to be exceptionally busy this Summer and for the foreseeable future due to the UK “opening up” but foreign travel currently being difficult and expensive. Welshpool after all does describe itself as The Gateway to Mid Wales. This increased holiday traffic is likely to increase for some years to come as people discover the delights of the area. An incinerator in Buttington is going to damage the area and its natural habitats as well as those of the human population. We feel there must be a more suitable project for the site which would enhance the area, create jobs for the local population and wealth for the site owners rather than the dangerous and environmentally harmful incinerator under consideration which is alienating the community. A fine example of this is the other very successful industrial parks nearby, for example The Offa’s Dyke Business Park approximately half a mile from the proposed incinerator site. Thus the current plans and proposals should be totally rejected by The Planning Inspectorate as soon as possible so that we can all breathe easily knowing that our future health and wellbeing is not to be jeopardised by a totally unnecessary incinerator. Yours sincerely, Dr T.D. Owen M.Sc. Ph.D. Mrs M.A. Owen M.Sc. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Geoff Vine
"Ref: DNS/3214813 I would like to support the Stop Buttington Incinerator Group in their protest about the planned Incinerator at Buttington Quarry. I support all their arguments, especially the very dangerous situation of the main Welshpool/Shrewsbury road. Many more lorries using the incinerator will cause chaos on an already dangerous stretch of road over the railway. My main concern is this: the health of local children at the school and other people in the area, and the fact that in decision making the health of locals always seems to come second to the economy. I was involved in a similar protest in the local village of Leighton, about the developnment of a mega factory farm that would house 1000 cows indoors. The farm was within 100 yards of Leighton CP School and as chair of Governors I was a member of a village protest group against the development. My main concern was that it posed serious threats to the health of the children. Many health experts supported us on this. A Public Enquiry was held and the Inspector supported our objections. It was then overturned by the Welsh Government which put economic gains over environmental issues involving children. I feel there is a very close connection with the proposed incinerator, as it will be very close to a local school. I hope that this time more thought will be given to the environment and child health over the economy of a company. The fact that the proposed development was expanded so that Powys County Council would not be involved and the final decision would rest with the Welsh Government is very worrying. GEOFF vINE resident of Leighton, Powys "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Huw Jones
"Dear DNS Wales, I am writing in support of the Buttington Quarry ERF incinerator. As a Montgomeryshire resident – I feel the incinerator will support the area economically, by providing skilled jobs – as well as making Wales more accountable for the way it deals with waste. It is my view that Montgomeryshire desperately needs new skilled private sector jobs (particularly in light of proposed factory closures in the area) in roles such as engineering – which the Buttington facility would provide. Many young people (including myself) are having to look out of the area due to a lack of local jobs in such sectors. By keeping these jobs and more young people living in Montgomeryshire – it will help support the economy, and increase demand for facilities such as schools in the local area. I do not want to see the Montgomeryshire economy turned into one of second homes and retirees. We need a strong private sector economy to support this. Powys currently has one of the highest recycling rates in the United Kingdom which continues to rise, with ambitious targets set by the Welsh Government being within reach of the local authority. There is no reason why the construction of an incinerator in Powys should change these targets or these excellent recycling rates. Residual waste from Powys is currently being ‘exported’ by road to a similar facility in South Gloucester – taking with it skilled jobs from Mid-Wales. This is a distance of over 100 miles by road from some parts of North Powys. This brings high transportation carbon dioxide emissions from the diesel lorries which transport our waste daily to Gloucester. There is therefore a positive environmental impact from local incineration, when compared to the long distance incineration model we are currently using. There’s a saying “out of sight, out of mind”. Wales needs to be accountable for the waste it produces, and needs to have sufficient facilities to deal with the waste we as a country produce. We should not be reliant on England to deal with the worst of Welsh waste. There are only two methods of disposing of residual waste which are currently economic – landfill and incineration. In my opinion landfill is a bad solution, as it creates problems for future generations and fails to deal with the issue today. Incineration with Energy Recovery in Wales needs to be a part of the landscape and economy until such time that better technological alternatives and higher recycling rates become a reality over the next two decades. Kind regards, H Jones "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Meg
"I strongly object to the build the Buttington Incinerator and I object giving the permission to incinerate waste. In my opinion the presentation of this Incinerator as a step to reaching the zero carbon target of the Government is highly misleading, and burning waste is causing toxic emissions which will be distributed via a chimney all over Buttington and Welshpool. Further the transport of the waste will happen according to the information leaflet from the Incinerator applicant by road transport which will put huge amounts of HGV traffic on a road which is stretched to a high degree already with the current existing traffic, as the A458 from Shrewsbury to Welshpool is a major east-west connection from the Midlands to Wales. As the overwhelming majority of road transport with HGV at this moment is done by diesel fuelled lorries I cannot see how that fact would fit into a zero carbon strategy? Aside of these points I object on the base that this incinerator, in order to run viable, would consistently need huge amounts of waste and by-products to reach safe burning temperatures to avoid dioxin being created and emitted, and for an estimated running time of the facility of a guess of 15 years would need to be kept running on waste, which should rather be reduced, or otherwise recycled. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Robin Breakwell
"I am wholeheartedly against this planned development. I have listed my main objections and can’t think of any positives for the local community, county of Powys or Wales as a whole. 1. Risk of health issues for local residents 2. Air quality, unusual weather patterns in valley (temperature inversion etc) 3. Environmental issues 4. Proximity to school 5. Strains on local road network, narrow bridges from both directions 6. We should be using less single use plastics and recycling far more. This will actually create a demand for waste to burn. 7. Increased road pollution, example 20 mile max speed going through Trewern outside of the school 8. Location so close to border, considering the site at Shrewsbury. Why aren’t locations central to Powys being considered? 9. What guarantees are there that it will be to service to Powys only? How far afield will rubbish be brought in from? Powys does not have a need for a development of this size. 10. Queueing of lorries waiting to be emptied. 11. Ash - how much will be produced, estimate is 25% of gross?, what will happen to it, i.e. further processing & removal. This is not mentioned. 12. Inaccurate measurements in proposal – it is actually 52m from a residents’ bedroom 13. Government commitment to zero CO2. 14. Visual impact in a rural setting, damage to local tourism & businesses 15. Pressures on local community during building/construction phase. Weekends / late nights? "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Simon Darby
"Dear Sir, Madam, Reference: DNS/3214813 - Buttington Quarry ERF Having lived in Trewern for the last fifteen years it has become increasingly obvious that the A458 is already at full capacity. Not a month goes by without an accident of some sort and there have been a number of fatal incidents in recent times. Whether it is the topography, layout or mixture of HGV, agricultural or holiday traffic there can be no doubt that the stretch of road from Shrewsbury to Welshpool is at best suboptimal as we currently stand. As such the plans to route hundreds of extra heavy lorries will exacerbate the situation whereby local people and holidaymakers alike are forced to travel in progressively hazardous and dangerous circumstances. How that translates in the inevitable increase in serious road traffic accidents should not be overlooked. Those overseeing this thoroughly unwanted development have a duty of care not only to local people but also to the hundreds of thousands of tourists who use this stretch of road to access Wales as a whole. Other residents have elaborated on the environmental issues, but I would specifically draw your attention to the increased heavy metal contamination that has been associated with the operation of similar incinerators across the world. Both mercury and cadmium are extremely toxic causing a variety of serious health issues such as thrombosis, immune dysfunction, hypertension, glucose intolerance and renal failure. Further studies have highlighted that even “state of the art” facilities are responsible for increased levels of dioxins, polychlorinated biphenyls and furans in the immediate local area. These carcinogens can enter the food chain via absorption into eggs and meat having settled on grass and ground used by livestock.You will note that the location of the proposed site is also very close to the local school. Local residents have a genuine fear and resentment towards this proposed development that transcends the usual knee-jerk “not in my backyard” reaction. It is grounded on the very real prospect that their lives and local environment could be damaged irreparably. Yours Sincerely Simon Darby "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Tracey and Michael Lewis
"We oppose the buttington incinerator as it will increase the amount of traffic , with more heavy lorries on the dangerous Cefn bridge. It will bring pollution from the burning of rubbish, which would be brought in from outlying districts. This will impact on children's health..the local primary school is too close for safety given the level of pollution it will cause. Yours sincerely, Mr Michael Lewis and Mrs Tracey lewis. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Christine Anne Ashton
"Large scale incinerators such as the one proposed, should be located in areas which produce the waste, with good road access e.g. at a motorway junction on an industrial estate, on flat land, away from residential areas. This Quarry location fulfils none of those criteria. Thousands of miles of unnecessary HGV transport will be clocked up in transporting waste from distant areas (generating additional PMs and CO2 emissions). Only 20,000 tonnes (max) of the 167,000 per annum proposed, is produced in Powys. The area’s road quality and network are totally unsuitable for 100 extra lorries per week. There are extensive traffic jams in the tourist season and several traffic accident ‘black spots’. The Cefn Bridge is regularly damaged and limited to one-lane traffic. That will happen even more often. The A458 is the Gateway to Wales – for tourism and fresh air. This industrial development will be an eyesore and detract from several businesses currently gaining from tourism in the scenic local area. The extra jobs envisaged in Broad Energy’s application will largely be temporary. It will be difficult to accommodate 300 itinerant workers. The permanent jobs to follow will be more specialised and are likely to be filled by people from outside the area. There are far more cost-effective ways of providing employment than this capital-intensive proposal. The landscape is so complex that the flue cannot do the job it is designed to do: the fumes will ground on the surrounding slopes of The Breidden Hills SSSI, camping & caravan sites, housing areas at Trewern and Middletown, Trewern School, and farmland. This has been confirmed in independent modelling. The shape of the landscape i.e. the high relief and the valley funnelling the South West winds along it, ensures that these areas will get a continuous stream of pollution. Just look at the climate statistics and the shape of the land. In contrast the Shrewsbury incinerator discharges over flat land to the north away from the city. In anticyclonic weather conditions, the frequent temperature inversions will concentrate polluted air which drains into the depression at Trewern. Also, people who live at altitude observe that the inversion boundary can be at over AOD 200m i.e. overwhelming the proposed flue. The modelling of plume behaviour by ECL should not be accepted as it stands. The unique geography and microclimate has not been satisfactorily accounted for. Wales has a commitment to protect future generations. This incinerator will pollute the local population – and the school – with toxic heavy metals such as CrVI – where there is no safe limit on WHO standards. Microparticles (PM2.5 and even smaller) are known to cross boundaries within the body and cause long term damage. Professor Mary Philipps-Jones comments: ‘Based on more recent WHO guidelines, PM2.5 and SO2 concentrations should also be urgently re-assessed, especially as (1) little analysis of the effects of 24 hour exposure to PM2.5 was undertaken by BE, and (2) using updated WHO guidelines, annual exposure limits are now exceeded.’ Even though the modelling appears to comply with current ‘environmental standards’ this is no guarantee that the emissions are safe for people who are exposed to them all the time, for many years to come. Patterns of disease indicate higher rates of ill health down wind of incinerators e.g. ‘Health Effects due to Emissions from Energy from Waste Plant in London’ [commissioned by the Greater London Authority, 2020]. Wales has a long-term reduce, recycle, re-use policy. Refuse should be managed where it is produced. The Zero Carbon Wales policy means that our recycling rates - already in the top 5 in the world – will be improved still further. What is the point of importing refuse into Wales when it should be better managed at source? Incineration produces at least 1 tonne of CO2 per tonne of refuse (2 tonnes in the case of hard plastics). We need to reduce GHG emissions. Broad Energy’s claim for ‘low carbon’ energy cannot be substantiated by national carbon intensity figures around 220g CO2 per kWh compared with 509 for ERFs (figures from Zero Waste Scotland Technical Report, 2018). Nor does incineration necessarily save on methane emissions. The Zero Waste Scotland report concludes that well-managed landfill sites emit lower equivalent GHG than ERFs. Separating food waste in Wales ensures that is the case, and well managed landfills are capped to store and utilise methane. Alternative lower temperature technologies are being developed to recycle mixed plastics. This could make much incineration redundant. Also, on Defra figures, incinerator capacity (on current figures) will be over-subscribed by 2026. Within the UK, we do not need more capacity for incineration whilst recycling rates are being improved. This application is not viable. Christine Ashton 19.05.2021 "
Members of the Public/Businesses
CPRW Montgomeryshire Branch
"Buttington Incinerator Comments from CPRW Montgomeryshire Branch CPRW Montgomeryshire have read the submission by BIIG and would wish to support the highly detailed analysis carried out into all aspects of the project and believe that the conclusions they reach reflect the very real threat that this project poses to this area of Montgomeryshire. We will not repeat the conclusions that we endorse but would wish to add the following comments: The project is located in a particularly sensitive location as a principal entry point into Mid Wales. As one approaches Wales along the A458, and also along the Cambrian railway line, the Breidden hillscape gives a relatively sudden welcome to a rural Wales topography that gives joy to visitors and returners alike. To then sweep round the corner at Trewern and be confronted by a massive, contorted structure awkwardly positioned on a ridge and emphasised by its chimney and plume will appear dominating and anachronistic but also raise concerns as to the Welsh attitude to its landscape and priorities. Although it may be viewed by some as too emotional to consider the degradation and industrialisation of this distinctive entry into Mid Wales, such cultural landscape issues are important to people. It is fair to say that most people associate a tall chimney , together with its continual plume, as degrading the area to an industrial landscape and now perceive it as signifying a return to a ‘smokestack’ technology. The strategic direction for dealing with waste is to reduce and recycle. This is amply illustrated by the Welsh Government’s policy of declaring a moratorium on the construction of facilities such as this incinerator. As an Authority Powys is leading the way in recycling in Wales and Wales itself has one of the best recycling rates globally. The irony would not be lost of building an incinerator at the entrance to Wales to predominantly burn English waste (refer to figures in the BIIG submission). Such a facility is now widely seen as outdated and research is continuing apace towards processing more waste materials into reusable commodities . The incinerator would become an extremely visible symbol of the folly of moving waste considerable distances from urban areas, with the consequent significant CO2 output, to produce even greater CO2 emissions in the incineration process. This would all be in contradiction of Welsh policy and Powys's sterling efforts to reduce and recycle waste. Not only is the landscape impact severe in the Trewern area but also highly detrimental to key assets such as Offa’s Dyke Path, the Severn Way and the Montgomeryshire Canal. The Powys LDP recognises all of these assets as Strategic Resources that should not be adversely impacted. Offa’s Dyke Path is predominantly walked from south to north and as it descends from Long Mountain the ZTV shows that the incinerator will be very prominent in the walker's view with the visibility for the whole of that time being similar to that shown in Viewpoint 22. As stated in the LVIA, the effect at this viewpoint is Major for sensitive receptors so the total effect over this time will be highly significant. This is followed by virtually a day’s walking with the facility readily visible as one progresses to Four Crosses. Sight of it will not be lost until the walker drops down off Llanymynech Hill. This degradation for such a long period of walking is not what one would expect for a National Trail. Similarly the effects upon Powis Castle gardens (with some of the highest visitor figures in Wales) are described as Moderate (and Major during construction) by the developers. There is a presumption that the ‘camouflage’ effect will be effective in reducing the impact of the building. In practice such effects are never that successful and the 'camouflage' is likely to give the impression of a gigantic vertical scrap yard on a ridge. In many views it will be seen against the sky so the 'camouflage' is likely to make it even more visible. The transport of the feedstock and residual waste is of great concern as regards safety at Cefn Bridge given, as the BIIG figures show, this is an accident blackspot. The additional use by HGVs will significantly increase the likelihood of an accident leading to a vehicle on the railway line with possibly disastrous consequences (e.g. Great Heck where 10 people were killed). A recent collision on this bridge (see BIIG report) resulted in a lorry cab hanging over the bridge parapet above the railway. If the search for a suitable site had been undertaken before deciding to locate an incinerator at Buttington then a site constrained by such a dangerous bridge would never have been contemplated. Overall the facility would appear to be the wrong technology in the wrong place. B.A.KIBBLE Chair CPRW Montgomeryshire "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elaine Mountford
"I am concerned about the fall out from this incinerator. This valley holds fog and mist and the emissions will be held with it. There is a large primary school very close by and alot of residential properties. The A458 is an extremely busy road on which there are frequent accidents. The additional traffic will surely add to this. [***REDACT***] the minor roads which is used by vehicles when the road is blocked. It causes mayhem for local residents. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr Gary Morgan
"In 2018 I purchased a family home in Trewern [***REDACT***]. Shortly thereafter I became aware of the Broad Energy proposal to build an incinerator just a short distance away. You can imagine the sinking feeling that I felt at this point knowing that there would always be a doubt in my mind that by living here I would be endangering [***REDACT***] my family and myself. Whilst I am not a scientist and Broad Energy have stated that there will only be a small risk to human health I really don't want there to be any risk at all to [***REDACT***] my family. Please see sense and reject the application. This would be an industrial facility located in a rural location which is a complete mismatch and if at all, should be located in an industrial area. [***REDACT***] please do not allow this to take place so close to a residential area.[***REDACT***] consider purchasing a site in a suitable location well away from people's homes. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Stephen Novick
"I oppose these plan to site this ERF here. It is not necessary for Powys which has a good recycling rate, and goes against all the principles of what the Council, Senedd and UK Government are working towards. It will bring extra traffic and pollution to the area and affect people's lives. There is no justification for building this here or indeed anywhere in Wales."
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Canal and River Trust
"Please see attached document/Gweler y dogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jason Doody
"I do not think that the location for the planned incinerator is acceptable as it is close to a large primary school, it would be visible from the school playground, and even closer to a large housing estate. Also the increased traffic on what can at times already be a very busy road would cause substantial problems to people using that road on a daily basis "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Karin Thompson
"Re DNS/3214813: Buttington Quarry ERF I wish to register my objection to this proposal in the strongest possible terms. There are many reasons for this, several of which have been picked up in comments by others. I therefore wish to emphasise some that are particularly relevant to me as a resident of this beautiful rural area: - There is no proven need for a massive industrial incinerator in this part of Wales - Granting the application would not only be contrary to Welsh Government's current policies and published strategies, but also risks the significant progress made across Cymru to improve recycling and reduce landfill as the Buttington incinerator will have to import waste from England and further afield to achieve viability. - The rural location is unsuitable for a large industrial incinerator. Not only would it be a blight on the landscape, the local topography leads to frequent temperature inversions which would trap emissions from the plant in the valley. - Unemployment locally, pre-pandemic, was low and likely to remain so. The applicant makes much of the jobs claimed for the proposal. Any created by the incinerator need to be weighed against the negative impact on the sustainability of the host community, through the reduced attractiveness of the local primary school and planned housing developments, and the knock-on effect on tourism-based employment which is of greater long-term benefit to the area and to Wales as a whole. - The developer's claims about local jobs are unsubstantiated, and far from being of benefit to the local economy, any permanent roles will be specialised and recruited from elsewhere. In the short term, examples from across the country show that the workforce during the construction phase will be brought into to the area, overwhelming our small community and jeopardising local tourist initiatives. - The local community has been concerned about this proposal since it was first floated in 2016, and over the last 5 years we have seen the scheme become bigger and more alarming. It brings no benefit to the area [***REDACT***] We are a community of less than 1,500 residents and with few resources to challenge a multi-national company. The numbers expressing their views would always have smaller than in more urban areas, but at a time of national emergency, we have also had to contend with consultations taking place during lockdown, and election purdah, when public meetings to interrogate the proposals have not been possible, we have not been able to debate issues with our neighbours or seek full engagement with our elected representatives; neither have residents without access to the internet been able to examine hard copy documents.[***REDACT***] I am concerned that a lack of numbers submitting representations may be taken as an indication that the community of Trewern/Middletown/Buttington & Hope is neutral about the application. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Kim Richards
"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the above planning application at Buttington, Powys (Reference number: DNS/3214813). I wish to object to above application for the following reasons: The proposed location is unsustainable Any development of this type will impact on both the landscape and local community The existing infrastructure and transport links are not suitable for the amount of traffic generated by the proposal. Existing recycling centre (Potters) in Welshpool to deal with waste from this area and around. No need for an additional facility just 5 miles away The proposed development is not to serve the local community or area and the majority of waste will be brought in from outside the county. Other incinerator plants around England and Wales are located near to major road networks for ease of transporting the waste to and from. Concerns about air pollution and carbon emissions from incinerators Close proximity to the local community (Trewern and Buttington) and the local primary school No benefit to the local community Proposed 70 metre stack will be visible from the immediate and surrounding area External finish of the building is a large factory and the stack will appear incongruous in this rural area Plumes of smoke or vapour will be seen rising above into the sky, again being something which would be out of character for a rural landscape. Unlikely that any camouflage will address its industrial appearance "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Lisa Parkinson
"The following representation is in regard to the proposed development of a large scale Energy Recovery Facility at Buttington Quarry, by Broad Energy (Wales) Ltd. The recent Welsh Government document ; Beyond Recycling: A Strategy to make the Circular Economy in Wales a reality (March 2nd 2021) states on page 32: “ In addition to our headline actions, we will also: place a moratorium on any future large scale energy from waste developments, as the increase in recycling and reduction in waste already seen means that we will not need any new large scale energy from waste infrastructure to deal with the residual waste generated in Wales.” The same document also states (page 19.) “The amount of waste produced by Welsh industries and commercial sectors in 2018 reduced by 22% (800,000 tonnes) compared to the previous 2012 survey” and on household waste: “Despite the progress we have made, our latest analysis identified 180,000 tonnes of Local Authority collected municipal waste was potentially reusable.” These statistics seem to imply that Wales is making good progress towards Zero Waste and also that there is immediate potential for further improvements. Pollution from the site whilst under construction and during its lifetime is both a local and a global issue. Increased traffic to and from the site has been estimated at 96 lorry movements per day, plus additional traffic for ash removal and the proposed educational visits, this will lead to: - pollution from diesel fumes and brake and tyre dust. - greater potential for traffic accidents on the well-known blackspot at Cefn Bridge. - traffic displacement onto Heldre Lane, a narrow, country lane used by walkers and residents. - increased noise pollution locally. - footings and foundations of the 19 historic or listed buildings within 1km of the development could be adversely affected. Pollution generated by emissions from the chimney itself will have a significant effect on the health and wellbeing of local residents. The development site is primarily residential (with 27 houses proposed within the LDF for Trewern) and very close to a school: - frequent local weather inversions will cause pollution from vehicles and the incinerator emissions to descend to street level. - a visible plume (as mentioned in the report) may lead to poor visibility on the road, or reach across to the next village, Middletown, which will be level with the top of the chimney. The following issues are particular to the local community: - the development in general is overbearing and will adversely affect the setting of the area, the height and scale of the chimney will be obtrusive. - the site contains and is surrounded by SSSI’s. In conclusion, the proposed development is both contrary to Welsh Government pledges towards a Zero Waste, Circular Economy and would have a devastating impact on the health and wellbeing of the local population were it to be granted permission. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
National Trust
"Consultation Response from National Trust to the Buttington Quarry Energy Recovery Facility, May 2021. Introduction National Trust (NT) is Wales’ largest private landowner and proud to care for 46,000 hectares of land, 157 miles of coastline and 18 of the nation’s finest castles, houses, gardens, and industrial sites. With the support of our staff and volunteers, more than 1.8 million visitors enjoy our places in Wales every year. We place great importance on the conservation, management, and enjoyment of the natural and historic environment both within and beyond our boundaries. The environment needs us now more than ever and we are making landscape-scale improvements for nature and playing our part to tackle climate change. We are committed to becoming carbon net zero by 2030, restoring and creating 4,600 hectares of priority habitat by 2025 to reverse the decline in wildlife and taking a bigger, better and joined-up approach to nature conservation and for all of our land to be of high nature status. As a conservation charity, it is our responsibility to look after special places and ensure that they are accessible for future generations, as well as those visiting right now. We welcome the opportunity to comment on the proposed Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) in Buttington. Powis Castle National Trust own and manage Powis Castle on behalf of the Nation. The Castle and Garden was bequeathed to NT on the death of Lord Powis in 1952. There was a castle on the site by the 13th century, with earliest references to a park and garden dating to the 16th century. Externally the castle has changed little since the early Middle Ages. The castle constitutes four separate Grade 1 listed buildings, and the Park and Garden also Grade 1. The terraces at Powis date back to 1700 and described by NT Head of Gardens in Wales as “one of the best surviving Italian terrace gardens in Europe” and by CADW as “to be the finest surviving Baroque late seventeenth/early eighteenth century garden terraces in the United Kingdom”. The proposed Buttington ERF will be seen from the terrace and castle, with key views to and from the East Front at Powis. The earliest cartographic evidence for the East Front at Powis is dated to 1629 and shows the castle at that date as a square structure with a bailey to both east and west. The eastern bailey is defined by a substantial wall with towers flanking a potential gateway to the east. Drawn views of the east front dating to 1684 suggest that major alterations to this approach to the castle have taken place, with a series of formal gated enclosures and stairways leading to the main east entrance to the castle itself. A raised terrace is also evident. By 1752 the raised terrace, the steps, and the enclosure now known as the bowling green, are in place on a measured plan essentially as seen today. The importance of the landscape and heritage setting of the terraces at Powis Castle was recognised in the deliberations of the application and Appeal (Extension to Existing Dairy at Lower Leighton Farm) (APP/T6850/V/12/2169855). Para 208 of the Inspectors decision relates to the setting of Powis Castle “Over 100,000 people would potentially experience this view each year and the fact that this would be a key part of most people’s visits to Powis Castle gardens makes this a highly sensitive location. The assessment of sensitivity made by the applicant’s landscape and heritage witness seems unable to give any weight to the huge numbers of people affected from this viewpoint”. Landscape, Visual Impact and Heritage setting issues National Trust consider that the submitted scheme underestimates the level of landscape, visual and heritage harm at Powis Castle. Section 6.9.1. of the Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) provides one viewpoint (Location 24) from Powis Castle stating “the architectural and scenic merits of Powis Castle and its gardens hold the viewer to scrutinise close range views rather than the available distant backdrop. Thus, the property itself is the key feature. The background composition is an important character facet, but the sensitivity of these areas is subservient to the overall Powis Castle estate”. This is a wholly inadequate assessment of the role of long-distance views in the setting of the Grade 1 listed building and Grade 1 Registered Park and Garden. This conflicts with all evidence submitted to the Leighton Farm Dairy public inquiry whereby all parties recognised the significance of long-distance views to and from Powis Castle. Section 12.4.19 of the Environmental Statement (Heritage) states in relation to Powis Castle “the castle and gardens are surrounded by fields and woodland, particularly to the north-east. Far to the north-east lies Welshpool which blocks any intervisibility between the castle and gardens and the Development Site. Consequently, there will be no effect and no further assessment is required”. Photographs taken from the Bowling Green below the East Front terrace, show how the development site is clearly visible to and from Powis Castle. An article in Country Life magazine from January 5th, 1901 states that the terraces ‘...command surpassingly beautiful views, the most delightful of all being through a long vista of trees to the distant peaks of Moel-y-golfa and the Breidden Hills.’ The Conservation Management Plan for Powis Castle and Garden identifies key views from the property including the view from East front towards the development site. We would suggest that several additional/alternative viewpoints are required including: the end of the East Terrace adjoining the sculpture, the easterly view from the Bowling Green terrace on the east front and from the lower bowls lawn terrace. Views of the scheme will also be possible from the Castle East Front porch at higher level and also from all floors and roof of the Castle on the East Front. The magnitude of impact in the LVIA states that during construction the impact would be ‘Small (generally) Medium (worst case scenario). National Trust challenge this conclusion in the absence of any consideration of cranage and lighting. We consider these will bring forward Medium to Large effect considering the open views obtained from the East Front and also considering that Powis Castle is a Very High Receptor. During Operation, the LVIA states that the Impact would be ‘Small’. Although the building structure may be partially obscured and ‘Small’, the visibility of the Plume from the stack would be visible during operation and could be Medium to Large, again considering the open views to the wider landscape of the Powis site and also the higher ground that it sits on. A more accurate and considered LVIA may result in a change to the overall significance of effect. The lack of recognition in the role of long-distance views at Powis Castle undermines the confidence in the conclusions it makes with regards to harm on heritage assets. National Trust consider that a revised assessment is required, and the conclusions incorporated into a revised Heritage Assessment. At the current time the submitted application makes no attempt to consider setting issues associated with heritage assets at Powis Castle. Attention should be given to the Inspectors conclusions (paras 372-382 Appeal Ref APP/T6850/V/12/2169855) in relation to Powys castle, para 372 stating “when considering the impact of a proposed development on the setting of a heritage asset, the recent High Court judgement in East Northamptonshire Council, English Heritage and National Trust v SSCLG and Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd [2013] EWHC 47389 has given a timely reminder that decision takers should consider the significance of the asset and the contribution that the setting makes to that significance. The effect of the proposed development on the setting should then be considered and evaluated, as should the impact on the significance of the asset and the appreciation of that significance”. National Trust requests the applicant gives further consideration and assessment of this issue. Stack height and plume assessment National Trust consider that the stack height and plume visibility will have important implications for concluding the level of harm from long distance views to and from Powis Castle. We would note that this issue will also be determined by a separate Environmental Permit from NRW. Section 6 of the submitted Air Quality Assessment confirms that the plume from the proposed 70m stack will be around 107m for 5% of the time. The submission also indicates that the plume will be within the site boundary for 95% of the time (no length confirmed), the submission provides a graphic illustrating average plume visibility (no length or % time is provided). The assessment concludes that plume visibility is not significant, and no mitigation is provided within the scheme. Section 4.19 of the Heritage Statement in relation to visible plume states “it is acknowledged that this has the potential to heighten the visibility of the stack and therefore the development in a wider landscape context”. National Trust note third party comments relating to the uncertainty in topography in concluding that a 70m stack would bring forward the required air quality and health issues. We await commentary from NRW on the scheme and confirmation that the air quality modelling and results/conclusions provided within the application are sufficient and reliable for the purpose of considering whether planning permission should be granted for a 70m stack? The location of the 70m stack and associated plume is at the centre of the long-distance view from the Bowling Green terrace at Powis Castle, and from the eastern elevation of the castle. National Trust would note that this has not been assessed within the submitted Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment, with wholly inadequate conclusions made at the outset of the submission with regards to the significance of long-distance views to the setting of the property. The submitted Heritage Assessment acknowledges the potential role of a visible plume to heighten the visibility of the stack but does not consider that the site is visible from Powis Castle. Might there be any colour issues associated with the visible plume? We would wish to see further consideration of this issue with further viewpoints, and an updated Table 6-8 (page 6-33) with regards to the Interactive Effects of Air Quality and Landscape. We consider a modified Heritage Assessment should be submitted incorporating new Viewpoints from Powis Castle and including consideration of the effects of visible plume and stack height. We would also suggest that mitigation should be considered within the submission, and if required an off-site landscape scheme brought forward. We wish to revisit this issue further following the response from NRW. Summary National Trust wishes to raise the following issues: • The scheme underestimates the level of landscape, visual and heritage harm from Powis Castle, additional work should be completed to that provided in the submission relating to Viewpoint 24 including the content of the Conservation Management Plan Key Views. • Additional viewpoints should be taken from Powis Castle East Front to inform the submitted LVIA and Heritage Assessment and consider winter and summer seasonality for long distance views. • Construction CGIs for the scheme should be prepared. • Assessments and CGIs regarding impacts at the construction phase and operational phase for night-time, together with the consideration of issues at dawn and dusk. • Assessment of lighting levels, fittings, quantity, area of illumination, assessment of viewpoint sensitivity. Further information is required within the submission to establish the principle of an acceptable scheme on long distance landscape and visual harm. Mitigation through either downlighting, point lighting or no lighting will be eliminated or reduced should be consider within the scheme, prior to acceptance that details could progress by planning condition. • Information on any resilience funding/off site landscape fund available for visual mitigation in the future. • Although colour schemes for the building have been produced, was an Environmental Colour Assessment (ECA) undertaken to aid the integration of the building into the landscape. Link to the Landscape Institute note here: https://landscapewpstorage01.blob.core.windows.net www-landscapeinstitute-org/2018/11/18-4-Environmental-Colour-Assessment.pdf Thank you for your consideration. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Border Hardcore & Rockery Stone Co. Ltd.
"Dear Sir / Madam As owners of the wider Buttington Quarry site, we write in reference to the application for an Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) by the developer Broad Energy Wales. We believe that this project offers many benefits to the wider site and the local area. The site’s historical industrial use must also be considered and we would like to make the Planning Inspectorate aware of the following points: 1. The ERF offers a ‘first class’ restoration of the main quarry void which best utilises the quarry’s excellent screening capabilities. 2. In the ten years or so that we have been redeveloping the former Buttington brickworks site, we have attracted new commercial tenants that combined have 60-70 employees, this area being adjacent to the application site. The ERF facility will act as an anchor tenant employing approximately 30 people. The remaining allocated employment land alongside the ERF site has the potential to create dozens more jobs across the wider Buttington site as it continues to grow. The proposed ERF will allow us to continue to develop this brownfield site into an Industrial Park that could sustain 200 employees in the future. The construction phase of the ERF and these subsequent neighbouring units would also boost the local economy, especially at a time when the country will be recovering from the global pandemic. 3. The potential to utilise the waste heat from the ERF will be an incentive to draw manufacturing companies to the Buttington site bringing new skilled employment opportunities into the area. Manufacturing being a sector which this part of Mid Wales is well known for. 4. The site has been through a lengthy vetting process in order to determine its suitability as allocated employment land for the Local Authority’s Local Development Plan. Direct trunk road access, position on the trunk road network and use of a brownfield site are key site attributes. Being located along the corridor of development (along the A458 trunk road) that has expanded from Welshpool, the Buttington employment site can be viewed to be an extension to the industrial/employment areas of Welshpool whose expansion has long been prevented by the River Severn flood plain. The on-site access to the electricity grid means that no pylons and overhead wires are required. 5. Operation of the ERF will require the installation of the new vehicular access (and stopping up of the existing) which will take all of the existing site traffic away from the half a dozen or so properties surrounding the current access location. The new access location having no dwellings in close proximity. The proposed new access will have a ‘ghost island’ ensuring better traffic flows on the A458 trunk road particularly during peak periods. Planning permission for this new and improved site access has been in place for some time as part of the development of the wider site. 6. Buttington Quarry and the adjacent industrial area has precedent for HGV movements in excess of those proposed by the ERF. Tonnage of brick manufacturing shales from the Quarry (circa 90k tonnes p/a) combined with the established decorative stone operation (circa 40k tonnes p/a - doubled to reflect material delivered in and out) from the mid 1990s through to 2008 meant HGV movements were considerable and certainly in excess of those proposed by the ERF. This was all using the site's existing access and during this time no complaints were received regarding HGV movements. In addition, the speed limit on the A458 at the site access has since been reduced to 50MPH. 7. The site has a long history of heavy industrial use. At least two high chimney stacks were built and used during the site’s long use as a Brickworks and formed part of the industrial landscape that has existed on the site since the early 1900s. The stacks were a known local landmark, the last of which was only demolished recently. The plume emitted from these chimneys would certainly not have been treated, monitored or filtered to the high degree and scrutiny of the proposed ERF. The brickworks was connected to the neighbouring Shrewsbury – Aberystwyth railway line via a dedicated siding and loading area which crossed the A458 providing a direct main line rail link into the site. 8. We consider the mottled, natural hues proposed for the building’s cladding, to be an innovative and highly effective part of the design, limiting the visual impact of the facility. The careful placement of the ERF within the quarry void means very little of the buildings will be visible. 9. Overall as landowners we consider this facility to best utilise the unique combination of attributes that the site offers. We have tried to present the above in a factual manner and trust this will assist in determining this application. Richard Hilditch Site Manager Border Hardcore & Rockery Stone Co Ltd. Buttington Quarry Welshpool POWYS SY21 8SZ "
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Cadw
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Keith Hand
"I wish to strenuously object to the Buttington Incinerator development as follows: First and foremost, the Welsh Government have made clear that there should be no incinerator construction in Wales. The government has stated their aim to achieve zero emissions and their desire and intention to promote their green credentials so bearing in mind those facts alone, I can see no reason for this planning permission to even be considered. But on the basis that it is being considered the following points illustrate why the site is completely unsuitable. Location: The site is at the bottom of a valley which is frequently shrouded in low cloud. Emmissions from the incinerator will be held down over the village which has two sizeable residential developments and numerous surrounding properties and farms, some of which have boundaries adjacent to the development site not to mention a primary school less than a mile away. Really, an incinerator next to a school? Who would ever considerable appropriate? In addition, the wind direction is most commonly blowing up the valley, which means that fumes will be blown over Trewern and will be below the level of Middletown by the time they get there. Which is why incinerators should never be built on low ground, they should be built on high ground so that the fumes are emitted into the atmosphere above any developed areas and will continue to rise before disipating. Access: The road access is poor from whichever direction the site approached, but particularly via the A458. This is the main road from England into mid wales, it's always busy and is a very slow road, there is no dual carriage way and very few opportunities to overtake. The Cefn bridge is a major blackspot, there are frequent accidents and road closures and the access into the site itself is terrible. Again, there have been numerous accidents there since the Speed Courier company has been there. Traffic frequently queues to get over the bridge during the holiday season and heavy lorries heading to the site are only going to add to the road pollution problem. Waste Disposal: Disposal of non recyclable waste should be done as near as possible to area in which the waste is produced. Powys produces only 20000 tonnes of this waste so there is clearly no requirement for an incinerator in this area. Therefore, the waste is obviously going to be brought into Wales from over the border. This does not fit with any of the information coming out of the Welsh Assembly. This is 100% NOT what the Welsh Assembly says it wants for Wales. Tourism: This area is the 'Gateway to Wales'. Tourism is so important to this area, both people who come here to stay for a break and those who pass through on their way to the coast. This is a beautiful valley, the first impression a visitor gets of Wales as they travel down the hill into the valley from Middletown. People in Wales are so proud of the country and tourism is so important, the incinerator would be a massive blot on the landscape and should not be allowed as there is no practical need for it all. Finally, I attended the last council meeting about the incinerator and was shocked that [***REDACT***] 25% of the waste being burned will be toxic, that they won't rule out that they will dispose of animal waste and that the road survey they carried out stopped at the border, which means that they only surveyed the road on the English side. Over the border into Wales, where the roads are narrower, pass through small villages and have the Cefn Bridge blackspot, were not included. These were actually only a few of the things that shocked me [***REDACT***] I implore you not to allow this development to go ahead. There is absolutely no need for it and it will be a disaster for this area, its residents and Wales. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Mr & Mrs S Kitching
"I’m case our earlier representation was not clear, we wish the Planning Inspectorate to refuse the application for all the reasons previously detailed."
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Wixey
"I find the Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) in this application over simplistic and further fails to take account of local road conditions. The low carbon energy claims cannot be supported by evidence. The claimed employment generated by the operating of the plant cannot be substantiated. TIA The Applicant claims the development will require 50 Artic vehicle movements per day to provide the feed stock for the incinerator. At first glance this would imply just over 2 extra vehicles per hour in a 24 hour period. This does not represent reality. These will need to depart, therefore this is a total extra HGV vehicle movements of 28,600 per annum on the A458. Their calculation relies on waste deliveries being spread over 5 ½ days per week. Waste is only collected 5 days per week so it is reasonable to conclude that it will only be delivered to the incinerator 5 days per week. 5 x 52 weeks per annum =260 delivery days This gives us extra vehicle movements of 28,600/260 = 110 per day. The nature of waste collection is that the collections are usually completed and the refuse collection vehicles (RCV) have been unloaded by 2pm. Broad Energy expect to draw waste from up to a 2 hour driving time from Buttington. This would imply locally generated waste such as Welshpool would start arriving on site about 2:30pm with the most distant vehicles arriving around 4pm. If we allow the vehicles to be on site for a maximum of one hour, this would have the effect of bunching the 110 vehicle movements into a 2 ½ hour window or 44 movements per hour between 2:30 and 5pm. These movements would coincide with the local traffic peaks of school pick-up and end of working day rush hour and on a Monday joined by HGV traffic carrying animals from Welshpool Livestock Market. This development is approximately a half mile from a new Industrial Estate (Offa’s Dyke) which is still expanding and will bring further HGV movements in the area. The development is located approximately halfway between two pinch points on the A458 – Buttington Cross Bridge and Buttington Railway Bridge. Buttington Cross Bridge over the River Severn is not easily passable by two HGVs travelling in opposite directions simultaneously and is frequently hit by HGVs causing local delays. Buttington Railway Bridge already has a 20MPH speed limit on it due to the small radius of the bends on the approach roads and is similarly damaged on a regular basis, the last incident included traffic light controlled single lane working for 6 months with associated tailbacks. In this area there is also Buttington Railway Level Crossing. Transport for Wales’ plans for the future include an increase in the frequency of services on this line raising the crossing closure to road traffic to twice per hour. Highways England have recently pulled out of the joint Wales/England plan to improve the A458 between Welshpool and Shrewsbury and the project to improve the road has been put on hold. From a purely traffic point of view this is a development in the completely wrong place. LOW CARBON The Transport and Road Research Laboratories have calculated that a single articulated Euro V engined lorry produces an average 424g of CO2 per kilometre. So, 110 vehicles each day travelling the 1km in either direction to or from the incinerator would generate 93.28 Kg of CO2 in the 2 ½ hour period in the local atmosphere. This generated whilst passing a primary school where the young children’s lungs are still developing. On a 2 hour journey to the incinerator a single HGV would emit approximately 54.72Kg of CO2 (or 3.648 Kg per tonne of waste delivered). If we assume an average journey time of 1 hour to the site for all HGVs delivering waste there this would total 110 vehicles x 60km x 0.424Kg/km x 260 days = 727.584 tonnes of CO2 per annum. Bernt Johnke1, in a paper for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, identified in 1998 that for every tonne of municipal waste incinerated 0.7 to 1.2 tonnes of CO2 is released to atmosphere. And the typical municipal waste incinerator electricity generation only plants were about 25-27% efficient, this puts municipal waste incinerators in the same ballpark as coal fired power stations for CO2 emissions per Kwh of electricity generated. By the time the transport CO2 emissions are added his is not low carbon waste disposal. The total CO2 produced by Buttington ERF would be in the region of 200,000 tonnes per annum compared with Ratcliffe on Soar coal powered power station which emits 61,436 tonnes of CO2 for 13MW output. (Ratcliffe figures from ‘campaign to close Ratcliffe power station’.) EMPLOYMENT STATISTICS: OVERSTATEMENT OF FUTURE EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS As a comparator Nottingham Eastcroft Municipal Waste Incinerator is about twice the capacity of the proposed Buttington Plant. It accepts waste direct from the RCVs rather than transfer to larger vehicles for delivery so probably handles nearly three as many vehicles per day. As well as electricity generation it feeds heat into a district heating scheme supplying some 2,500 homes. It was built in the early 1970s. It employs 40 full time staff. I do not believe that a modern incinerator with much greater automation will provide 30 full time jobs. It would be closer to 17, viz., 1 manager, one administrator, 3 day technicians, 3 day plant operatives, 3 night supervisors, 3 night technicians and a 3 semi-skilled operatives (on a 12hr shift pattern). I object to this proposal as it is in the wrong place and provides none of the benefits claimed in the planning application. 1. EMISSIONS FROM WASTE INCINERATION This paper was written by Mr. Bernt Johnke (Germany) and reviewed by Robert Hoppaus (IPCC/OECD/IEA), Eugene Lee (US), Bill Irving (USEPA), T. Martinsen (IPCC/OECD/IEA), and K. Mareckova (IPCC/OECD/IEA). "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Russell George MS/AS
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Vic Bray
"Dear Inspectorate, Having closely read the Buttington Incinerator Impact Groups report I whole heartedly support their opposition to this development. I would like to add that research for the International Panel on Climate Change have identified that burning Residual Domestic Waste produces approximately 1 tonne of Carbon Dioxide for every tonne of waste incinerated. Therefore we have this plant generating a minimum of 167,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, this isn’t green this is filthy. (EMISSIONS FROM WASTE INCINERATION paper was written by Mr. Bernt Johnke (Germany) and reviewed by Robert Hoppaus (IPCC/OECD/IEA), Eugene Lee (US), Bill Irving (USEPA), T. Martinsen (IPCC/OECD/IEA), and K. Mareckova (IPCC/OECD/IEA). The road haulage of 167,000 tonnes of waste from towns and cities up to 2 hours drive time from Buttington Quarry is very carbon intensive. A typical modern articulated truck produces 921g of carbon dioxide per kilometre travelled ( figures from the UK’s Transport and Road Research Laboratory). 2 hours driving time in an articulated vehicle will easily generate 132Kg of carbon dioxide delivering the waste and a further 132Kg on the return journey. Broad Energy state each vehicle will deliver 15 tonnes of waste so it will take 11,134 journeys to deliver the waste and as many to go back to Birmingham, Burton-on-Trent, Llangefni, Stockport, etc. so that is another 3000 tonnes of carbon dioxide dedicated to burning the residual waste. According to Stanford University a modern coal fired 13GW power station (the same size as the Buttington ERF) would produce 117,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide or nearly 50,000 tonnes per annum less. This project is carbon dioxide bonkers. I heard Mr Hilditch-Brown on Radio Shropshire Tuesday 18Th May at approximately 7:20am. The planning application claims it will create 30 permanent jobs but, on the radio, he stated it would create 35 permanent jobs. Nottingham Eastcroft waste incinerator only employs 40 people and it is twice the size and over 40 years old. [***REDACT***] Mid-Wales does not want or need to be the waste disposal capital of the UK. Waste should be disposed of close to it’s source of production. [***REDACT***] The local population does not generate enough waste to support this plant, it would generate more carbon dioxide than a coal fired power station and not employ anywhere near the numbers promised. I oppose this development in the strongest terms. Regards Vic Bray "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Welshpool Labour Party
"The Welshpool Branch of the Labour Party discussed the following briefing paper in October 2020 and adopted a policy to campaign against the the Buttingotn ERF. We met with Labour Members of the Senedd and brought about the adoption of the Moratorium announced by the Welsh Government on 25 March 2021. There is no reason for this ERF to be given planning permission. BRIEFING ON THE PROPOSED BUTTINGTON INCINERATOR OVERVIEW Buttington is situated at Trewern, on the road from Shrewsbury into Welshpool. The Incinerator would be positioned on one side of the valley facing Welshpool on the other side of the valley. The preplanning consultation for the Buttington Energy Recovery Facility/ Incinerator finished on 26 October. The developers, Broad Energy Wales, intend to submit their planning application in November. The incinerator would burn non recycled waste and produce 13 MW of energy per annum to the National Grid. It would operate 7 days a week and 24 hours a day and the vehicle movements would take place between 0700 and 1900 weekdays and 0700 and 1230 Saturdays. There would be 50 vehicle arrivals and 50 vehicle departures each weekday. POLLUTION: Broad Energy have not said exactly where the waste would come from and because the incinerator would not be built in partnership with the Welsh Government ( unlike the Cardiff and Flintshire incinerators) they would be free to set up contracts for waste from anywhere in the UK. The majority of the waste would come from England and from as far afield as places like Birmingham, Worcestershire and Stoke-on-Trent. Current estimates show very little waste will come from Powys. We are unclear as to whether this waste becomes “Welsh waste” when it crosses the border and so will affect our recycling targets. Within Wales, the developers’ catchment area runs from the Isle of Anglesey down to Ceredigion. So much more pollution on our roads and so many more trucks on roads not built for them. It is the WRONG PLACE. A site search across Powys was carried out in August 2020 [***REDACT***] The incinerator site is on the A458 trunk Road. This is a single lane road which is heavily used particularly in the tourist season. There is a notorious accident black spot at Cefn Bridge within a few hundred yards of the side entrance. Due to the local microclimate, cloud hangs on the hills and it is likely that the particulates from incineration will also do this. The site is situated 0.6 miles from Trewern School. It is the WRONG SOLUTION. We need to stop producing the waste and focus on achieving ever high levels of recycling. Incineration causes pollution and breaks the circular economy by destroying valuable resources which could be recycled now or in the future as technology advances. It also adds substantially to the carbon footprint of Wales around a tonne of carbon for every tonne of waste burnt. This figure does not include the carbon expended in bringing the waste to site. Incineration also dis-incentivises recycling, including recycling in England where levels are at around 40%. Incineration is a high carbon way of producing electricity. The future lies in renewable low carbon energy solutions such as wind power and solar. It is the WRONG TIME. Incineration is yesterday’s solution and Wales and England must guard against the very real risk of creating overcapacity. Equally there are two other incinerators planned for Birmingham which will take the 65% of waste which is not recycled there and it is likely that waste will have to travel even further to feed the Buttington Incinerator. October 2020. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Bentley
"Dear Sir/ Madam, Re: DNS/3214813 I would like to raise concerns about the proposed development for the Buttington Incinerator. Climate change will be impacted through incinerator development, because they produce as much carbon dioxide as coal fuelled power stations which are being phased out. Not only will the carbon emissions be high from the incinerator itself, but huge amounts of carbon will be produced by HGVs transporting waste over long distances including from England. There will be an additional carbon footprint which may not have been considered caused by production of the chemical needed to pre process the waste, The toxic ash from the incinerator will be difficult to dispose of and could harm the environment. Incineration is no better for the environment than landfill because of the amount of carbon they produce. The incinerator will have an unsightly visual impact on what has always been a beautiful rural area on the welsh border and this will affect tourism. The suggested camouflaging, while looking effective in a photograph, could never be as effective in real life under varying light conditions.. The breath-taking views which can currently be enjoyed from the Breidden Hills and Long Mountain will be ruined by this development and the visual impact on people entering Wales from England on their holidays will be devastating. It’s hardly the impression the Welsh government should be encouraging when tourism surrounding Wales’ rugged beauty is so important. A far better use for the site would be a nature reserve and park along the lines of the Llanymynech former quarry, conversely this would help promote local tourism. The impact on areas of historical interest surrounding the proposed incinerator site have been neglected such as Cefn Digoll and Bausley Hill. We have unusual weather conditions in this valley and inversions are common. Low cloud is often stuck between the hills, and emissions from the incinerator would fall to the ground instead of being blown away. This is a major problem for young lungs that are still growing. The site is in very close proximity to a primary school so this a serious concern. The proposed site sits very low down and the winds would carry a constant stream of pollution towards Middletown which will be at about the same height as the chimney top of the incinerator. The incinerator won’t be burning local waste, but will be shipping it from miles away, including England, to be burnt in the countryside. Whilst I’ve been told that the incinerator is ‘silent’ the constant stream of lorries through Trewern and the surrounding areas will bring noise and pollution. Reversing sirens on the lorries themselves will also create noise outside the incinerator enclosure. The incinerator won’t be burning local waste, but will be shipping it from miles away, including England, to be burnt in the countryside. There will be little or no local employment created, because the skills required to build and run the incinerator will be specialist and imported. The developers haven’t taken into account the fact that waste will have to be shipped over long distances and the infrastructure around Buttington won’t be able to handle this kind of industry. It should be on an industrial estate near bigger roads and better transport links. Cefn Bridge is a crunch point literally and there have been numerous accidents over recent years. It won’t be long before someone dies and the increased HGV traffic for the incinerator will make this more and more likely. Yours faithfully Andrew Bentley"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Paul Campion
"Dear Planning Inspectorate I wish to record my objections to the proposed incinerator/ ERF at Buttington Quarry in Trewern Reference: DNS/3214813 My main points of objection to the above application are: • The proposed incinerator has been born from completely the wrong premise • There is no requirement for an incinerator in Powys • The proposed site is in a small village community and an entirely inappropriate location for such a facility • Inadequate pollution modelling by the promoter and an unnecessary risk to local air quality • There is currently a moratorium in place, preventing planning permission being granted for new ERF’s in Wales The proposed incinerator has been born from entirely the wrong premise. [***REDACTION***] Broad Energy Wales Limited was set up [***REDACT***] to develop the quarry site at Buttington into an ERF/ incinerator. It is understood that consideration to alternative sites was made only in late 2020, [***REDACT***]. Incinerators should be the result of a very carefully considered strategy/ solution to a specific waste problem. Decades ago, incinerators were seen as a great solution for dealing with waste. As waste strategies have developed through the years, incinerators are increasingly becoming a ‘last resort’ solution for dealing with waste. The Buttington ERF has been promoted at the quarry purely as an alternative use of the land as a commercial venture. I have no issue with the owners of the quarry in procuring a venture to make use of their site. But it should be one that is consistent with the Local Development Plan and sympathetic to the surrounding community and environment. An incinerator in this instance is neither of those things and entirely the wrong thing to have in such close proximity to the local school and local housing. As is evidenced by the very detailed assessment carried out by the Buttington Incinerator Impact Group (BiIG), the air pollution modelling carried out by Broad Energy does not adequately take account of the local, very unique, topography of the area. BiIG have made concerted efforts to provide a very detailed analysis (I refer you to the groups collective submission to the planning inspectorate), which shows that the plume of smoke from an incinerator in the quarry is most likely to travel over the adjacent school and village and across the neighbouring village of Middletown. Because of the unique hilly topography in the area, pollution from the incinerator could settle on these populated areas as well as the nearby countryside, including a site of special scientific interest. It is imperative that the plume from any incinerator properly disperses. The potentially inadequate modelling carried out by Broad Energy suggests that they may not properly understand the risks of the complex landscape in which they wish to build their incinerator. I ask the inspectorate to please heavily challenge and interrogate this aspect of the application. Another incinerator in Powys (and indeed Wales) will only harm the Welsh Government’s objectives for promoting the zero waste by 2050 philosophy. Incinerator’s only seek to encourage more waste because they need a constant feed of fuel, for the life cycle of the facility. Powys has taken massive strides to become one of the best counties not only in Wales but in the UK for recycling rates. It would be entirely counter-intuitive to bring a large-scale incinerator into that equation. The incinerator has not been proposed to deal with just local waste. As per the applicants’ own data, and that provided by Powys local authority in their own consultation response, there is only a fraction of waste being generated in Powys when compared to the capacity of the proposed facility. Because of the nature of how waste contracts work, the waste could potentially be coming from anywhere in the UK, unnecessarily increasing traffic on the road networks. If Broad Energy intend to source the majority of the waste from the West Midlands in England (as is stated in the application), then surely it would make far more sense for them to find a site that is in or closer to the West Midlands? An incinerator on the M6, M5 or M54 corridor would be much closer to the source of the waste, without impacting overly stretched single carriageway trunk roads such as the A458 and A483. This also raises a question about the English and Welsh national waste strategies and how the respective governments liaise with each other on such matters. It is something that I know little about, but I hope that in the process of making a decision on the Buttington ERF, due diligence is carried out on how it may affect not only the Welsh waste strategy but also in England too. I think it is fundamentally wrong that Wales should make decisions on how England’s waste is to be dealt with (and vice versa). In the case of the proposed Buttington Incinerator, this is exactly what would happen if permission was granted by the Welsh Government on a facility that plans to rely heavily on waste from across the border. I am not suggesting that the nations should avoid collaborating on these matters, on the contrary, I believe it is imperative that they do. But I am pragmatic on the reality of these political decisions and I strongly believe that both nations and their governments should think hard about decisions that could adversely interfere with each other’s waste strategies. I understand that to refine the Welsh Government’s latest strategy to achieve zero waste by 2050, there is to be a moratorium on the decision for any new incinerators/ ERF’s in Wales. I believe it is paramount that the Welsh Government develop a clear directive, during the moratorium on incinerators, on what quantity/ proportion of England’s waste they intend to allow to be imported into Wales and how much Incineration capacity they wish to therefore provide for England. My personal opinion is that it should be minimal (I accept that aiming for none is impractical) and done in a highly controlled way. I trust that the moratorium is reason alone for the planning application for the Buttington ERF to be rejected. If any further augmentation was required in this specific case, I point to my earlier comments regarding the proposed incinerator being born from entirely the wrong premise. ? I would like to summarise my objection as follows: • The requirement for any new incinerators/ ERF’s should be based on a cohesive, national strategy for dealing with waste generated in Wales. Any new incinerators should be located close to the source of waste to minimise impacts of transport and associated pollution. Wales should not build incinerators that will predominantly import waste (from England). • The Welsh Government has declared a moratorium on the granting of planning permission for any new incinerators to allow time for the updated waste strategy to be detailed. It is therefore untenable for any new incinerators in Wales to be granted permission at this moment in time. • When a strategy has been finalised, and if it is deemed that further incineration capacity in Wales is required, I believe it is highly unlikely that Buttington Quarry would be a suitable location for an Incinerator/ ERF, for the reasons stated above. Yours sincerely Paul Campion Resident in Trewern, Welshpool. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Anita Parkinson
"Dear Sirs, I wish to object to the Buttington Quarry Energy Recovery Facility for the following reasons: The proposed development would be out of visual character of the surrounding area due to height and scale of the chimney. The development area includes a site of special scientific interest - Buttington Brickworks. The possible adverse health effects for local residents caused by emissions from the proposed incinerator due to its close proximity to a primary school and being in a predominantly residential area. Buttington Quarry is not a suitable site for such a development. The noise pollution emitting from the site both from the HGV traffic Monday to Saturday and from the operation of the incinerator 24/7. I believe this development would cause stress and have a significant impact on the Long term health and mental health of local residents, school children and employees not to mention the road safety aspect of HGVs passing a primary school on a regular basis. The proposed development would increase the traffic on the A458 by a significant number of HGV movements per day taking waste to the site and removing residual Ash from the site. An increase in traffic on this road will add to the noise and air pollution in Buttington and Trewern and will increase the potential for accidents on a road that already has an accident black spot at nearby Cefn Bridge. Increased traffic using the main trunk road may also cause traffic displacement with the potential for Heldre Lane, a narrow country lane, to be used as a by-pass around the Quarry site. I am concerned that the extensive construction and earth moving works to build the incinerator may have a structural impact on nearby properties. If the proposal goes ahead survey/monitoring reports should be carried out on those properties to ensure any structural damage caused by the proposed works is rectified by the developer. This proposed development appears to run counter to the Welsh Governments future waste strategy in Wales and goes against the drive to recycle, reuse and minimise waste. I am not a local resident but I have strong feelings on how such a development could have a huge adverse effect on local residents and my family members who live close to the proposed site. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Buttington Trewern CP School
"Buttington Trewern County Primary School Cefn Road Trewern Welshpool Powys SY21 8TB 23rd May 2021 Dear Sir / Madam, Re: Buttington Quarry – ERF, DNS/3214813 The Governing Body of Buttington Trewern County Primary School has collectively considered how the proposed siting of the Broad Energy Incinerator at Buttington Quarry would affect our school and its community. We would respectfully ask that you give full consideration to our unanimous opposition to the proposal as outlined below: The long-term health of our pupils, staff and the residents of our local community Our school, which sits at the heart of this beautiful rural setting is situated in very close proximity to the proposed development site (approx. 350 metres) and as such, we have major concerns in relation to the impact on the quality of the air that our pupils, staff and local residents will breathe. Broad Energy have been keen to point out that their plan will not result a significant impact on human health, but clearly, this statement does not rule out the possibility of any impact on human health, only that the consequences may not be significant. Broad Energy’s assertions are based on a modelling process only and therefore may not necessarily be accurate in practice. Furthermore, it is impossible for anyone to be certain of the health impacts that could result in decades to come. We do not want to leave the risk to our future generations open to question. It is important to note that we regularly experience low lying fog which sits in the valley where the school is and the idea of this fog/low cloud being polluted from the incinerator, and hanging over the school is a major concern for the school governors. In addition to the potential impact on physical health, we also have concerns over how the proposed development could negatively impact the mental health and wellbeing of our pupils, staff and local residents. Particularly when there is regular low lying fog, we are concerned this will cause anxiety for our staff, pupils and parents as they will be concerned that particulates and noxious gases will be trapped in the inversion and will have a perception that their health could be negatively impacted as a result of the incinerator emissions. Many of our pupils and their families currently enjoy the benefits of outdoor recreation and exercise close to the proposed development site with walking, running and cycling being particularly popular. Within the parameter of the school we have an outdoor gym, a community playground and a sports field (used by the local football team). We are also in the process of developing an outdoor sensory garden against which we have secured grant funding in recognising the local need for this. To allow the proposed incinerator development to proceed at the Buttington Quarry site would undoubtedly lead to reduced take up of outdoor activities within our community spaces with a resultant knock-on effect to physical and mental health We ask that you consider our right to peace of mind in enjoying our school, the surrounding countryside and most importantly the air that we breathe. This right will be severely restricted if parents, pupils and residents are concerned about the local air quality. Highway safety issues The entrance to our school is situated on the A458 which is the main route out of Powys to Shrewsbury in an easterly direction. It is also one of the main routes into Mid Wales for tourists especially from the West Midlands. This is a busy main road which receives a high volume of traffic throughout the day and in particular during the morning around the time that our pupils are being dropped off at school by their parents. We have noted the difficulties that arise when, after dropping off their children, parents attempt to re-join the carriageway as long streams of traffic approach from either direction. To add a considerable number of more HGV’s per hour would in our opinion add a burden of additional traffic that would exacerbate the problem with resulting consequences for road safety. We also bring to your attention Cefn Bridge which is situated just a short distance from the entrance to our school and being known locally as an accident blackspot. The narrow width of the carriageway here has resulted in numerous accidents over recent years and in particular when a vehicle has to pass an HGV on the bridge itself. Please refer to The County Times article dated 18th December 2018, linked here: https://www.countytimes.co.uk/news/17307767.pictures-show-lorry-hanging-edge-cefn-bridge-a458-crash-near-trewern-welshpool/ Long-term success of our school Our exceptional team of staff at the school have worked tirelessly over many years to achieve an excellent reputation and standing throughout the local area that we see today. However, as you will no doubt be aware, the funding for our school is largely based upon the pupil numbers attending. Numerous parents have expressed their concerns to us about the proposal and from this feedback, we anticipate difficulties in recruiting new pupils to the school as well as declining numbers as some parents make the decision to move away. We ask that you allow us to maintain the position that we have today as one of the leading and preferred primary schools in Powys. The landscape impact, health concerns, increase in volume and pollution from traffic, we believe, will have detrimental impact on the future viability of what is currently a thriving rural school. Environmental Ethos of the School At our school, we take pride in encouraging and teaching the pupils about environmental issues such as the importance of recycling and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. We have an active, platinum awarded eco-committee and the pupils lead the way with their environmental campaigns they choose to run. It would be contrary to the school’s environmental ethos if we were to have this proposed incineration facility on our doorstep, which evidence has shown can discourage recycling and emit considerable levels of CO2 into the atmosphere. On a final note, we would encourage you to visit the area to see for yourself the idyllic setting that the school has in what is very much a traditional and very rural village setting. We strongly believe that to allow an industrial facility of this type to go ahead in this type of setting would be extremely damaging and would benefit the few to the detriment of many. Yours sincerely, Fiona Warburton Mrs Fiona Warburton Chair On behalf of the Governing Body Buttington Trewern CP School "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Craig Jones
"Buttington Quarry - ERF Planning Inspectorate Reference: DNS/3214813 I am writing to express my objections to the proposed development as mentioned above. • As a direct neighbour [***REDACT***] from the proposed industrial development. We moved and purchased a property in a rural location [***REDACT***] I have huge concerns regarding [***REDACT***] health and well being [***REDACT***] if this development is to proceed, as the children will never be able to get away from the air pollution [***REDACT***] • [***REDACT***] we have huge concerns over noise, smell and light pollution. The incinerator will be running 24hrs a day, so we will have no escape from it. Also, reversing sirens on lorries, and just additional vehicle noise, will all disturb the relative tranquility we currently experience. Light pollution, shining down into our property is another concern • The Geography of the area results in significant weather inversions, which means despite the height of the stack, pollutants will pool over the local area, causing increased health issues. • [***REDACT***]. We have spent the last 3 years renovating a farm cottage, and creating a family home. This development will significantly affect the value of the property and if the proposal goes ahead result in the property being worth significantly less than what it was purchased for (despite improvements) and be much more difficult for us to sell to move away from this horrific development. • [***REDACT***] the developers have not engaged with us [***REDACT***] During the relevant zoom meeting’s the difficult questions were filtered out and left unanswered, [***REDACT***], and despite sending a list of questions as requested which they assured us they would address and respond to, we have not heard from them at all. • With the proposed development being very close to the local primary school, I am very worried about the safety of all the children that attend the school, as well as my own. Not only in terms of pollution, but also in respect of the increased traffic levels, and volume of traffic having to pass by the school entrance. This road already sees the highest increase of traffic during the summer months due to it being the main road into Wales for tourists. There are already lots of accidents on the Cefn Bridge involving HGV’s, cars and Bikes and to then add a constant stream of HGVs in and out of the incinerator site makes this road even more dangerous for everyone involved as well as an increase in the associated vehicle pollution and noise. • Significant increased road usage to A458, shipping in non recyclable waste and removing ash. This is a busy road from the West Midlands to the coast, and currently subject to increased accident levels and road closures due to the sharp bends on this stretch over the Cefn bridge • There is not a local need for this incinerator and it will not be burning local waste (Powys as a county does not produce enough waste to feed this incinerator). The waste will have to be shipped in from miles away, including England, to be burnt in our local rural countryside - this surely is not right? particular as there is an existing incinerator located approx. 20 miles away in Shrewsbury [***REDACT**] • I personally don’t think incinerators are the best, most efficient or cost effective way of dealing with non-recyclable waste. But, if there is a need, then surely the right location is on an industrial estate, away from housing and local schools, such as Wrexham Industrial Estate which has the infrastructure and transport links required to support such a development. • Incinerators are not a low carbon method of dealing with waste and play a significant role in climate change. Incineration is no better than land fill because of the high level of carbon they produce. Not only will the carbon emissions be high from the incinerator itself, but also huge amounts of carbon produced from the vehicles travelling to the site, as well as transporting and disposing of the ash out of the site. • I hope this development does not go ahead, but if it is approved, I would ask you to make provision in order to protect us, that along the tree line border, there is additional planting to help with screening and sound deadening and ensure sound proofing is installed around the perimeter of their development. I ask that you refuse this proposal as a result of the issues I have raised, thereby protecting the local residents and school children, their quality of life and health and wellbeing and in doing so, keep our rural community rural. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Ferguson
"Dear Planning Inspectorate Re DNS/3214813, Buttington Quarry - ERF, Broad Energy (Wales) In my capacity as both a local resident in the nearby village of Leighton and as a climate and energy professional, I am writing to object to the proposed development of an energy recovery facility at Buttington. As a local resident, I am concerned about the following impacts on myself and my local community: - Evidence of need. There is not a local or national need for this project. In the whole of Powys, it is expected that we will produce only 14,000 tonnes of non-recyclable domestic waste this year (a fraction of the proposed capacity). The Welsh zero-waste commitment and the recent strategic assessment on the future need for energy from waste capacity in Wales make it evident that there is neither a local nor national need for such a facility. - Air quality, health and well-being. I want my government to approve initiatives that will improve our local air quality and the health and well-being of our communities in Wales. I am absolutely dismayed that it is even being considered to locate a project that will release dangerous emissions near to local houses and a local school. I moved from a large city to the countryside because I (together with my fellow human beings) need to breathe clean air to stay healthy. I want us to preserve and enhance the clean air we have in Wales. I do not want my local area (or any area) to be an unnecessary dumping ground for pollution and be forced to breathe dangerous particulates. There are better ways to tackle our waste and energy needs as outlined by Welsh government strategies on these matters. - Traffic and emissions from road transport. The A458 road is already at full capacity and developments that result in additional (and unnecessary) HGV traffic should be rejected. I have personally experienced too many near misses with large HGVs which came over the centre line on the Cefn bridge. I am also concerned about air pollution from additional HGVs on the road. - Our local economy. There is no local need or desire for this project and therefore the economic impacts will only be detrimental. An eyesore such as this proposed incinerator situated along a major road into Wales from England will negatively impact the tourism appeal of both the natural beauty of our local area and as a key entry-point into the rest of Wales. - Trust in government. I want to feel that I can trust my government to make decisions that support the interests and needs of the many people in our local communities not the business interests of the few. If the government approves this proposal, it will fundamentally damage trust with the local communities in this area (and likely further afield). As a climate and energy professional, I work with governments from all over the world on climate and energy policy. I have always been impressed by (and promoted on a global level) the holistic and world-leading approach of the Welsh Government on climate and energy issues. This planned development raises the following additional concerns: - Increased waste. Our zero-waste and beyond recycling strategies outline targets for zero-waste without the need for landfill or energy recovery and clearly state that there is no need for new waste incineration. There is evidence that waste incinerators actually generate demand for additional waste and reduce recycling rates. This proposed development would therefore be counter-productive to our zero-waste goals. - Increased emissions. The recently announced net-zero emissions target commits Wales to aggressively reduce emissions by 63% this decade alone and 100% by 2050. Additionally, our First Minister, in announcing his new cabinet last week, promised that climate change would be at the heart of decision making. Today, there are many cost-effective ways to generate electricity with zero emissions and in order to achieve our climate targets it is essential that any project that contributes to increased emissions is not approved. - Delivery of key government strategies and global reputation as a climate leader. In the Well-being of Future Generations Act, the Towards Zero Waste and Beyond Recycling strategies and the recent net-zero commitment, we in Wales have committed to put people, future generations, our global climate and our natural environment at the heart of every decision. If this proposal were to be approved, we would both damage our global reputation as a climate leader and most importantly, jeopardize the possibility to achieve these carefully considered and essential goals. Every decision that we make in Wales must be in support of initiatives that benefit future generations, reduce emissions and reduce waste. Approval of this project would do the opposite. I want to trust that my government will follow through on its promises and in my professional capacity I want to be able to continue to promote Wales as a climate leader. Finally, with the recent Moratorium in March (with immediate effect) on such projects, I do not understand why this planning application has been validated in the first place or why there are still reports that the proposal is being put forward for consideration? I am therefore writing in the sincere hope, that my above-mentioned concerns are not even necessary and that I can continue to trust my government to uphold its promises as a proud resident of this beautiful country. Yours sincerely Elizabeth Ferguson "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Heidi Bentley
"To Whom It May Concern, Reference: DNS/3214813 I am writing to object to the buttington incinerator. Cefn Bridge has many accidents over the years, especially involving HGV lorries that regularly mean traffic light have to be in place. The increased HGV traffic for the incinerator will make this more and more likely. In addition the road between Welshpool and Shrewsbury is not good enough to accommodate extra HGV as there is also regular accidents along this route. The incinerator won’t benefit myself in anyway yet I will have to live with the disadvantages. Whilst I’ve been told that the incinerator is ‘silent’ the constant stream of lorries through Trewern and the surrounding areas will bring noise and pollution. Reversing sirens on the lorries themselves will also create noise outside the incinerator enclosure. Incinerators are not at all ‘low carbon’ as the developers suggest and produce almost as much carbon as a coal-fired power station. The incinerator at Buttington will not be low carbon as it will produce similar carbon emissions to a coal-fired power station which are being phased out by the government. Incinerators are not ‘low carbon’ and play a significant role in climate change. The developers of the incinerator will import labour to build and run the plant and that it will have a negligible effect on local employment opportunities. The incinerator won’t employ many local people anyway, because it will need specialist developers and operators. Yours Sincerely Heidi"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Marion Hayes
" Re: DNS/3214813 – Buttington Quarry ERF I have neither the technical expertise nor the erudition of the Buttington Impact Incinerator Group (BIIG) but having read their document (your reference DNS/3214813-000110) I wish it to be known that I fully endorse their conclusions. I have read the Applicant’s Non-Technical Summary and I wish to express my objection to this planning application. Buttington Quarry is an inappropriate location for an ERF because: 1. The Welsh Government has placed a moratorium on any future large scale energy from waste developments (defined as a waste facility generating more than 10MW) as the increase in recycling and reduction in waste already seen means that we will not need any new large scale energy from waste infrastructure to deal with the residual waste generated in Wales. There is therefore no local, regional or national need to build this facility within Wales. 2. It disregards the “proximity principle” for waste management developments which states that waste should be dealt with as near to its source as possible. To source sufficient residual waste to efficiently feed the ERF the Applicant has twice extended the waste catchment area. The latter now stretches, in Wales from Anglesey to Pembrokeshire. It also includes Cheshire, Shropshire, the West Midlands and Herefordshire in England. 3. The alternative sites evaluated were all within Powys I consider that alternative sites within the large catchment area should have been considered as there is no local need for this ERF to be situated within Powys. 4. It will have a negative impact on climate change Burning residual waste, particularly plastics, in an incinerator produces more CO2 than burning coal. CO2 emitted from the ERF stack together with exhaust emissions from the numerous HGVs accessing/leaving the site during both the construction and operational life of the ERF will contribute towards climate change. The Welsh Government is committed to reducing CO2 emissions in order to meet climate change targets. 5. The proposed ERF will have major visual impact on the landscape This ERF would be a large industrial building, operating 24 hours a day, with a 70m high stack sited amidst the open countryside of the Severn valley. The ERF building and stack is completely out of keeping with the surroundings and contrary to the rural character of the valley. The plume emanating from the top of the stack will catch the eye. The picture on the cover of the Applicant’s Public Consultation Document 14 Sept 2020-26 October 2020 illustrates this. There are no other tall structures in the picture! Positioned near the English/Welsh border it will be unwelcoming to visitors coming into Wales by road and by train. The plume will be even more visible at night when it will be highlighted by an aircraft warning light. Our rural environment sustains our local economy through agriculture and tourism. It is precious in its own right through all the life it supports and for the natural landscape we enjoy. The presence of an ERF will neither maintain nor enhance the environment which should be conserved for future residents and future visitors. 6. It will exacerbate highway safety issues The A458 between Shrewsbury – Buttington Cross is single carriageway road in each direction. There are few opportunities to overtake. This is frustrating for both local residents and visitors. There are two narrow bridges, hidden dips and a level crossing on the route. In Summer slow moving farm traffic, numerous vehicles towing caravans and motorbike riders who frequently arrive in groups cause further road safety problems. I would suggest that the increase in HGV traffic associated with this ERF is avoidable by refusing the planning application. 7. It may cause the bioaccumulation of pollutants within the food chain Having a background in biology I am very concerned that nothing is known about the long-term effects of the bioaccumulation of toxins emitted into the atmosphere by a waste incinerator sited in a rural location. This proposed ERF is in a very rural environment. The 48 existing incinerators in the UK are all urban, close to high density residential and commercial developments which produce the waste. An ERF at Buttington will be surrounded by farms growing crops for human consumption and animal fodder. Dairy and beef cattle graze the grassland, as do sheep. Free-range chickens produce meat and eggs. If agricultural land becomes contaminated by air pollutants we will not know how the food chain is impacted and how this will affect human health for many years. Future generation may be negatively impacted. 8. It will have a negative impact on local communities Ever since I attended a drop in session held at the village hall, Middletown in July 2019 I have worried about the impact of this ERF on our lives. It will have a negative impact on the well-being of local communities. a) I live in Middletown which, because of the hilly landscape, lies at the height of the top of the stack. The prevailing winds are from the west. How would the health of residents be affected by this development?? b) I am particularly concerned about air pollution. No air pollutions is safe. There can be no doubt that the air quality immediately around the ERF will be more polluted than would be the case if it wasn’t there. c) Pollutants emitted from HGV exhausts are also health hazards. d) The site is designed so that HGVs must reverse in order to tip their cargo of residual waste into a hopper. I know from personal experience how intrusive the sound of reversing alarms can be. This noise from 7am -7pm will be detrimental to the amenity of residents living close to the site. e) The villages of Trewern and Middletown are bisected by the A458. Residents of both villages have to cross the A458 when using public transport. I have to cross-over the road to reach the church in Middletown, residents in the other half of the village have to cross the road to reach the Royal Mail postbox, the mobile library bus and the village pub. In Trewern families wishing to access the school from the Pentre Gwyn Estate have to cross the A458 and then walk adjacent to it along the pavement. These are frequently mothers with babies in prams and pedestrian toddlers. During the recent building of the Newtown by-pass I found the construction lorries very intimidating. It took longer for a gap in the traffic flow to occur so I could cross the road. Now we may once again face the noise and vibration of heavy construction traffic thundering past. f) I look out of my kitchen window and sometimes see clouds drifting along the valley bottom. I think this is called atmospheric inversion. If the ERF is buiIt I will worry about what pollution is contained within and underneath the cloud. g) The thriving primary school at Trewern is adjacent to the A458, close and downwind of the proposed ERF The children’s playground apparatus adjoins the road. The undeveloped lungs of young children are particularly vulnerable to key pollutants in exhaust fumes (NO2 & fine particulate matter) and similar pollutants from industrial processes. How will their health be affected?? If parents choose to withdraw their children from the school or not choose to enrol them because of air pollution fears, the school will suffer. A school is socially important to a village community. [***REDACT***] After reading the possible Short Term & Long Term Health Impacts in the planning application (paragraphs 15.2.1 – 15.2.7 and paragraphs 15.3.1 – 15.3.6 respectively) [***REDACT***] Perceived adverse effects on physical health may negatively impact the mental health of local communities. SUMMARY I object to the proposed ERF at Buttington Quarry. I have detailed my reasons and concerns. I hope that you recommend to Welsh Ministers that they reject this planning application. Marion Hayes (Mrs) "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Montgomeryshire Constituency Labour Party
"RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED BUTTINGTON INCINERATOR On behalf of Montgomeryshire Constituency Labour Party (CLP) OVERVIEW Montgomeryshire Constituency Labour Party has kept an eye on the proposed Buttington Incinerator for a number of years and initially approached Broad Energy for a meeting, which was declined by the company who just pointed us at their website for information. We have also taken an active interest in Waste Management in Wales, the plan for a Zero Waste Wales and in the issues around the management of the Llanidloes landfill site. We have met the Buttington Incinerator Impact Group and also taken advice from local experts in our Party. After examining the evidence, Montgomeryshire CLP took a position of opposition to the Incinerator. We raised the issue with Labour Members of the Senedd and we also submitted changes to Welsh Labour Policy which resulted in the moratorium on large incinerators in Wales. Buttington is classed as a large incinerator. We fully support the submission by the Buttington Incinerator Impact Group. IN SUMMARY We oppose the incinerator on the grounds that :- • There is a moratorium on such incinerators in Wales • That there is no local need being served • That the proposal is in contravention of the Welsh Government’s policy goal of a Zero Carbon Wales as it will significantly increase the carbon footprint of Wales. • Welsh Government is committed to a Clean Air Act in Wales to embed WHO guidance • That the local road infrastructure will not support the additional traffic • That the proposal is in contravention of the Welsh Government’s policy goal of a Zero Waste Wales MORATORIUM The Welsh Labour Manifesto commits Welsh Government to “enforce a moratorium on the consenting of all large incineration facilities in Wales.” In the Senedd legislation, large is defined as over 10MW. Please note that incinerators under 10MW can only take local waste – e.g. hospital incinerators. The associated Final Policy Document (2021), specifically mentions the proposed incinerator at Buttington. We request that the Planning Inspectorate enact the Moratorium on Large Incinerators in Wales which went into law in March 2021 and reject this application. LOCAL NEED Powys County Council have already stated in their submission that there is not a local need for an incinerator. We note that, due to past problems at the Llanidloes landfill site, the correction and stabilisation at the site will mean that at least the next 5 years of local landfill waste will be required on this site in order to stabilise it. This further reduces any local waste for an incinerator. Labour has just been elected to form Welsh Government for another 5 years. Welsh Government is therefore committed to deliver its manifesto which will abolish the use of more commonly used single use plastics; further reducing the available local fuel for any incinerator. We request that the Planning Inspectorate rejects this application on the grounds that there is no local need for it; which is the condition in Welsh Law for having an incinerator of less than 10MW. ZERO CARBON WALES Welsh Government is committed to a radical transition to a Zero Carbon Wales. Broad Energy’s planned incinerator at Buttington will significantly add to the carbon footprint of Wales. Waste to Energy has been shown to create more carbon than gas fired power stations. Some carbon calculators also place waste to energy in the same bracket as coal fired power stations in terms of their carbon footprint (e.g. Stamford University’s calculator). We also do not believe that the additional carbon footprint of the delivery vehicles is fully taken account of in Board Energy’s calculations for the plant. [***REDACT***] We request that the Planning Inspectorate rejects this application on the grounds that it is in contravention of Welsh Government policy to achieve a Zero Carbon Wales. CLEAN AIR ACT As can be seen in other submissions in this consultation, there are issues created by the exhaust plume from the incinerator which are complicated by the local geography. Due to the local microclimate, cloud hangs on the hills and it is likely that the particulates from incineration will also do this. The site is situated 0.6 miles from Trewern School, thus creating the potential for associated long term damage to developing lungs. Equally, because there is not a local need for the incinerator, it is clear that waste must be trucked in for as far afield as Worcestershire and Stoke-on-Trent. A journey time of 2 hours will allow the incinerator to take waste from much of central and Northern England. This will significantly add to road traffic and the resulting associated air pollution. Again, many of the additional 110 truck journeys a day from vehicles delivering to and leaving the incinerator will pass by the school at Trewern. Welsh Government is committed to setting the highest standards of air quality into law in a Clean Air Act for Wales. This will be consistent with the advice and guidance from the World Health Organisation. The provision of air quality monitoring will be extended to ensure we eliminate pollution at source. Particular protection is planned for school environments. We request that the Planning Inspectorate rejects this application on the grounds that the Buttington Incinerator will create additional air pollution [***REDACT***] which will be in contravention of the direction of travel of the Government. ROAD TRANSPORT The English authorities have currently pulled out of a scheme to improve the A458, road between Shrewsbury and Buttington / Welshpool. Since Broad Energy proposes that a great deal of the waste to feed the incinerator will come from England, all the transport delivering this waste will have to use the A458. The incinerator site is on the A458 trunk Road. This is a single lane road which is heavily used particularly in the tourist season. There is a notorious accident black spot at Cefn Bridge within a few hundred yards of the site entrance. We request that the Planning Inspectorate rejects this application on the grounds that the Buttington Incinerator will add a significant additional load of vehicles onto inappropriately designed roads with the likely additional risk to other road users. ZERO WASTE WALES Welsh Government is committed to achieving a Zero Waste Wales. This will build on the excellent recycling levels in Wales, fund Repaid and Reuse hubs in 80 towns and create a circular economy. The proposals Board Energy have put forward for Buttington are an outdated solution to dealing with waste which has no place in this future vision. Incineration causes pollution and breaks the circular economy by destroying valuable resources which could be recycled now or in the future as technology advances. It also adds substantially to the carbon footprint of Wales around a tonne of carbon for every tonne of waste burnt. This figure does not include the carbon expended in bringing the waste to site. Incineration also disincentivises recycling. We request that the Planning Inspectorate rejects this application on the grounds that the Buttington Incinerator is the wrong solution, does not fit into Welsh Government strategy for dealing with waste and adds to the carbon footprint of Wales. The Buttington Incinerator is an outdated solution, supports no local need, has been proposed in the wrong location and is in completely contrary to Welsh Government policy. We therefore oppose this application in its entirety and ask that the Planning Inspectorate reject it. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Adela Johnson
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Andrew Wilson
" have lived in Trewern for 16 years and raised my family here. The proposal for the incinerator is desperate and harmful and needs to be stopped. My objections centre around the health risks to the community here. The local school [REDACTED] is downwind from the proposed site. The air quality due to the busy roads is already poor at times [REDACTED]. The incinerator will add to this problem and moderate conditions will become more severe. A child in London died due to air pollution. We don’t want those conditions here. Under certain weather conditions a thermal inversion can occur where the air sinks instead of rising. The gas emissions will descend on the school and village of Trewern. The proposal claims that an extra heating of the waste gas will push through the inversion but it seems likely that these conditions would not be noticed straight away. Any energy used to heat the emissions would reduce the profitability of the plant- which is surely a conflict of interests. Under normal wind strength conditions the emissions would blow towards the north and east and ground on the village of Middletown. The computer model used to describe the spread of the emissions fails to show the landscape around me. The complex of hills and valleys with the prevailing wind direction create a unique set of conditions that can funnel the wastes into the settlements. The content of the emissions is determined by the type of waste burnt. The quality control of this process is sketchy at best. Some waste materials contain a whole cocktail of chemicals including toxins like dioxins. The proposal says the concentration of these chemicals would be very low but don’t say how and when they will test for it. There is no low concentration for dioxins that is safe to human health, so to say there is no problem is disingenuous at best. The A458 is a very busy road with considerable container traffic, farm vehicles and huge seasonal holiday traffic. The road system barely copes as it is and the number of accidents on the Cefn bridge and around the incinerator site is impressive. The prospect of another 50-100 trucks a day bringing waste will not help. I appreciate that Powys is a Conservative area (sadly) and we are a long way from Cardiff, but this is clearly a case for Governmental intervention. Recent developments in a green strategy for Wales have been noticed here and approved of. The community here don’t see a short term get rich quick scheme for one man and poison the whole area as a fitting response to your efforts. We would like to keep conditions here as good as they can, so our children and older people can breathe."
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Ann Humphrey
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Barker J
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Buttington Trewern County Primary School
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Clare Pritchard
"I object to this facility being built in this position because lorries will come from various places in Wales via small roads and eventually A roads as opposed to the facility being built closer to a motorway or dual carriageway with much shorter and less intrusive journey times. This development traffic as planned may contribute more to pollution and warming than it is saving. Perhaps the use of the adjacent railway would be more beneficial? I also object because there is significant amount of temperature inversion at this location and estimation of its penetration effect relies on a specific height ie 90 metres rather than a real situation. It therefore ignores the impact of cooling on the plume with distance from the stack, and thus to pollution downwind of the site. Finally I would hope that any pollution resulting from this incinerator and any impact on the local community and ecology should be monitored regularly by an independent body and reported back to the appropriate government body. Whilst I understand that there is an obvious need to dispose of unrecyclable plastic in the most efficient way that we can, we also need to protect the ‘wellbeing of future generations’. Thank you"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Cllr Amanda Jenner
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Corrine Rowley
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Craig Williams MP
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Cynthia Vellam
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Davies AG & VA
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Derek and Gill Corfield
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Dr Simon Hart
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Elizabeth Loader
"Point One: There is no regional need for this incinerator. Powys Council Local Impact report, “it is considered that the 167,000 tonnes per annum capacity of this proposed Energy Recovery Facility will substantially overprovide for the Region’s waste treatment needs and will have a negative effect locally.” Point 2: as a nation we are proudly striving towards zero waste we have a diminishing need for an incinerator - even a small one. I am proud of the Welsh government’s environmental strategies and policies….. let’s stick to them and not move backwards! Point 3: this would be a dreadful eyesore on our landscape. We are fortunate to live in a stunning area with many nationally popular walks - Offa’s Dyke, Moelygolfa, Powis Castle - the stack from the incinerator and resulting cloud plume with ruin this stunning area. Powys County Council Impact report states “ It is considered that the proposal will have a significant and detrimental effect on the valued characteristics and qualities of the Powys landscape and will thus have a negative impact.” Point 4: this would have a dreadful effect on our local economy - tourism and agriculture! And yet provide very few jobs for local people …… in fact in would render locals unemployed as our tourism declines and local holiday let’s/caravan parks and cafes close due to lack of visitors. Point 5: whilst I have limited evidence for this point ….. I believe that the incinerator will be damaging to our health. I do believe nor trust Broad Energy. I do not trust that thorough inspections and measurements of the pollutants in the air will be conducted. This is is my greatest anxiety and concern. We are a small population that will be living close to this incinerator….. I don’t trust that our health is of concern to any governments or big business! Point 6: the impact of HGV traffic on a narrow rural trunk road. Whether traffic is to approach from the East or West - there are hazards - narrow Cefn bridge or frequent flooding. Increased HGV traffic will also have a negative effect on our health and local environment- pollution! "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
German, P
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Gill and Derek Corfield
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Harriet Franklin
"The incinerator would cause a lot of pollution throughout Trewern. It would also cause unwanted traffic, that can already be very bad throughout Buttington. This in turn could cause a big impact on tourism and therefore a loss for nearby businesses. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Helen Hayes
"DNS/3214813 - Buttington Quarry ERF I am writing to register my objection to this planning application which I consider contravenes national and local planning policies as well as the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 (the Act). As you will be well aware the Planning Inspectorate has an obligation to think about people now and in the future when a recommendation is made to Welsh Ministers regarding this planning application. In my opinion the proposed ERF at Buttington Quarry contravenes aims cited in both the Act and our local plan ie Towards 2040 - the Powys Wellbeing Plan (published 2018). 1. Wellbeing goal: A globally responsible Wales • Burning residual waste in an incinerator produces more CO2 than burning coal. CO2 emitted from the ERF stack, together with exhaust emissions from the numerous HGVs accessing/leaving the site during both the construction and operational life of the ERF, will contribute towards climate change; • Incineration of residual waste is only one level above land-fill in the waste hierarchy; • Wales has an excellent record on recycling, something of which we should all be proud. However, there is undoubtedly more to be done. However, the availability of incineration facilities is known to dis-incentivise recycling; • Whilst the ERF would generate heat, there are no existing facilities to use this. No future end users have been identified. The Applicant has a “vision” that generated heat can be utilised in the future, but this is uncertain. It would be more appropriate to locate this ERF where the heat produced can be used immediately. • The Welsh Government published a new waste strategy in March 2021 (Beyond Recycling) placing a moratorium on any future large scale energy from waste developments as the increase in recycling and reduction in waste already seen means that we will not need any new large scale energy from waste infrastructure to deal with the residual waste generated in Wales. This proposal is in direct contravention of this published strategy. The building in Wales of a such a large scale ERF that is not needed, which will contribute to climate change and which produces heat that is not utilised, directly contravenes the Act’s wellbeing goal of a globally responsible Wales. 2. Wellbeing goal: a prosperous Wales • Tourism contributes £720million in income per annum; • The proposed ERF is situated on the A458, a road which in summer months is used by thousands of holidaymakers to access Wales from the West Midlands and beyond. It will be a large industrial facility, operating 24 hours a day, at a key gateway to Wales. A large scale ERF is unsympathetic to the character, and contrary to the aesthetics, of a rural valley. It is not welcoming to visitors seeking to experience Wales’ beautiful countryside. • Both the construction phase (lasting 3 years) and the operational phase (in excess of 30 years) will increase Heavy Goods Vehicle movements along the A458 between Shrewsbury-Buttington Cross. On its website, the Welsh Government states that for 9km between Buttington Cross and Wollaston Cross (in Shropshire) the A458 is not up to standard. Buttington Quarry is sited within this 9km substandard section. • An increase in HGV traffic will make existing highway problems worse; • Existing transport links will be adversely affected; • The Applicant predicts 30 jobs will be created when the ERF is operational. The facility will operate 24 hours a day so this equates to 10 jobs per “standard” eight-hour working day. The creation of any new jobs is to be welcomed within a rural area. However, I suggest that more jobs would be created if waste was managed higher up the waste hierarchy. • Mid-Wales is heavily reliant on tourism. Were the proposal to have a significant negative impact on the experience of visitors, there may be more jobs lost from within the local economy than would be created by this proposal. An ERF will have a negative impact on the rural landscape. Increased HGV numbers on the A458 will have an adverse effect on traffic flow to and from Powys. Tourist numbers may fall. These are factors that will have a detrimental effect on the local economy and thus conflict with the Act’s well-being goal of a prosperous Wales. 3. Wellbeing goal: A resilient Wales • An ERF neither maintains nor enhances the natural environment which is rural; • The quality of this natural environment sustains the local economy through a vibrant agricultural sector and through tourism, but it is also precious in its own right through the valuable ecosystems it supports and for the natural landscape we enjoy; • We need to conserve, protect and enhance the environment for future residents and future visitors. The proposed ERF therefore conflicts with the well-being goal of a resilient Wales. 4. Wellbeing goal: A Healthier Wales • Emissions will emanate from the ERF stack and from the exhausts of HGVs accessing/leaving the site. Air pollution is a major issue of public health concern. • No air pollution is safe. UK targets are less stringent than levels recommended by the World Health Organisation, contributing to deaths. • I would suggest that the potential air pollution impacts are of particular relevant concern in the case of this proposal, which is located very close to (and will therefore impact on) a busy and vibrant primary school. • In addition to adverse impacts of air pollution on physical health, mental wellbeing must also be considered. If this ERF is built the perceived adverse effects on physical health will negatively impact the mental health of local communities. Emotional health is as important to wellbeing as physical health. Air pollution is a major issue of public health concern. The proposed ERF may therefore have significant health implications for future generations. People’s mental well-being will not be maximised because perceived air pollution levels can be just as detrimental to health as factual levels. The proposed ERF therefore conflicts with the well-being goal of a healthier Wales. 5. Wellbeing goal: A Wales of cohesive communities • The A458 bisects the villages of Trewern and Middletown. • The A483 bisects the villages of Llanymynech and Pant. • Any increase in traffic flow will negatively impact the ability of local residents to cross the busy roads. In Trewern & Middletown residents have to do this in order to access facilities such as public transport, the Royal Mail postbox, the pub, the school, the church and to connect with friends. • The waiting time to safely cross will be increased and more vulnerable residents (the young and the elderly) may find HGVs going past intimidating. • Residents may therefore feel disconnected from their friends, other residents and key services. • Pedestrian delay [ ***REDACT***]is not conducive to cohesion within our communities. • The ability to get around EASILY and SAFELY, underpins the 2040 Powys vision. • Trewern has a thriving primary school which is situated just south of the proposed ERF. If parents choose to withdraw their children from the school, or not enrol them in the first place, because of air pollution fears, this will negatively impact social cohesion within the village. The proposed ERF therefore conflicts with the well-being goal of a Wales of cohesive communities. SUMMARY I object to the proposed ERF at Buttington Quarry because I consider that: • it is sited at an inappropriate location; • it contravenes 5 well-being goals as defined in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015; • it works against the local objectives of the Powys Well-being Plan; • whilst it has the potential to create a limited number of jobs, this benefit does not outweigh the adverse impacts which I have detailed. I ask you to recommend to Welsh Ministers that planning permission is refused. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Ian Bradley
"See the attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Idris Andrew
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
J K Cheshire
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Jenny Shepherd
"WE HAVE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR ROAD SAFETY, HUMAN HEALTH AND WELLBEING AND THE ENVIRONMENT. 1. ROAD SAFETY: THIS ROAD IS AT TIMES VERY BUSY AND ACCESS TO THIS QUARRY IS TIGHT FOR HGVS. THE 8 VEHICLES PER HOUR EXPECTED WILL CAUSE SERIOUS DELAYS AND ROAD SAFETY RISK. THIS ROAD IS ALREADY ACKNOLWEDGED AS BEING HIGH RISK PARTICULALRY THE NEARBY CEFN BRIDGE SITE WHICH HAS SEEN A NUMBER OF FATAL COLLISIONS IN THE PAST TEN YEARS. 2a. ENVIRONMENT/BIODIVERSITY: THERE ARE SOME RED BIODIVERSITY ACTION PLAN (BAP) SPECIES IDENTIFIED IN THE AREA INCLUDING SLOW WORMS. THERE IS SCANT MENTION IN THE PROPOSAL FOR SEARCHING FOR AND SAFELY REMOVING THESE AND OTHERS. IT IS OF GREAT CONCERN THAT THE PROPOSAL ADMITS "THE DEVELOPMENT'S FOOTPRINT IS OF NEGLIGIBLE ECOLOGICAL VALUE WITH EXTREMELY LIITED SCOPE TO SUPPORT PROTECTED SPECIES." IN THE LIGHT OF THE WELSH GOVERNMENT'S FOCUS ON CONSERVING AND INCREASING BIODIVERSITY THIS HAS TO BE A MAJOR CONCERN. 2b. THIS ROAD IS ALREADY BUSY AND BOTH TRAFFIC NOISE AND EMISSIONS WILL SURELY INCREASE, IMPACTING THE ENVIRONMENT CONSIDERABLY. 3. HISTORICAL/CULTURAL HERITAGE: THE PROXIMITY OF THE SAXON/VIKING BATTLEGROUND AT BUTTINGTON IS NOT AKCNOWLEDGED IN THE HERITAGE SECTION OF THE PROPOSAL - A MORE DETAILED PLAN FOR EXCAVATION OF THE SITE SHOULD BE INCLUDED. 4. PUBLIC HEALTH: ALTHOUGH THE PROPOSAL STATES THERE WILL NOT BE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON HUMAN HEALTH WE NEED TO SEE SOME PROOF OF THAT IN THE FORM OF DETAILED FINDINGS OF THESE ASSESSMENTS. FALLOUT FROM THE PLUME NEEDS TO BE MODELLED - THERE IS A TENDENCY FOR MIST TO GATHER IN THE VALLEY BOTTOM. AT THE VERY LEAST A 70M STACK WILL BE VISIBLE AT ALL TIMES TO PEOPLE LIVING WITHIN A WIDE RADIUS. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Jessica Bradley
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
John Bater
" Dear Sir/Madam DNS/3214813 - Buttington Quarry ERF I object to this planning application because I consider that the Transport Impact Assessment is unsatisfactory. It neither reflects the existing road infrastructure nor the seasonal change in traffic volumes experienced on roads in the vicinity of the proposed development. I write in a personal capacity as a Powys resident who works for a Welsh company which services the hospitality industry. I deliver to hotels, restaurants, pubs, holiday parks, sports clubs etc. in Powys, Ceredigion, Carmarthenshire, and into Shropshire. I have many customers in and around the Welshpool area and know the A458 between Shrewsbury-Buttington Cross and the A483 between Buttington Cross-Oswestry well. When either of these stretches of road are blocked there is no alternative appropriate routes for HGVs to use that doesn’t involve a lengthy detour. I cannot see any contingency plans should either road be closed. My comments on Chapter 8 (Highways and Transportation) are as follows: 1. Existing road infrastructure • Many trunk roads in urban areas have segregated lanes in a dual carriageway, or are of motorway standard. Because of the rural nature of Mid-Wales there isn’t a dual carriageway, let alone a motorway, within my entire delivery area. • The A458 and A483 are trunk roads. By definition this means they are managed by the Welsh Government. • On its website the Welsh Government states that for 9km between Buttington Cross and Wollaston Cross (in Shropshire) the A458 is not up to standard. Therefore Buttington Quarry is situated on a section of road that is recognised to be substandard. • From its junction with the A5 near Shrewsbury to its junction with the A483 at Buttington Cross (approximately 16 miles) the A458 is single carriageway in each direction. The road has numerous twists and turns. There are few opportunities to overtake. Long stretches of the road have double white lines at the centre mandating against overtaking. Between the villages of Middletown and Trewern there is 600 yards of the road which has three hidden dips. Laden HGVs frequently struggle up the inclines. Driver frustration, a primary cause of traffic accidents, builds. • Buttington Quarry lies between two S-shaped bridges, namely Cefn Bridge (A458 over the railway line from Shrewsbury to the Welsh coast) and Buttington Bridge where the A458 crosses the River Severn. Both bridges are narrow with impaired visibility of oncoming traffic. It is not possible for two larger vehicles (and certainly not HGVs) travelling in opposite directions to cross safely over either bridge at the same time. One HGV will have to stop causing traffic to queue behind it. • The Cefn Bridge, which crosses the train line from Shrewsbury to Aberystwyth, has an advisory speed limit of 20mph. It is a notorious accident black-spot. If the roadside barriers of the bridge are damaged (as seems to be happening with increasing frequency), repair can take months to achieve because Network Rail has to close the railway line (for the safety of train passengers and the repair workers) before this can be facilitated. During these lengthy time periods the traffic flow over Cefn Bridge is controlled by temporary traffic lights causing long traffic queues in both directions. • Other impairments to traffic flow on the A458 between Shrewsbury-Buttington Cross include: a) twice daily 20mph speed restriction outside Trewern Primary School on schooldays; b) level crossing at Buttington where the railway crosses the road; c) bus stops with no lay-bys (when services such as the X75 stops for passengers to get on or alight, vehicles to the rear of the bus are unable to overtake); d) livestock crossing the road where the road bisects a farm (at SY21 8EW = Plas y Court Farm, when the dairy cattle are herded across the road from pasture for milking). • The A483 between Llanymynech-Pant is a very congested stretch of road where lengthy queues are already experienced. • The A483 at Moors Straight (just north of Buttington Cross) crosses a flood plain, is subject to regular and numerous flood warnings throughout the year and is often closed by flooding when the River Severn bursts its banks. 2. Seasonal Variation in Traffic • Traffic counts, both automatic and manual, took place in January 2019 to confirm existing traffic conditions. • Traffic counts were therefore done in the month of the year (January) when traffic volumes are at their lowest. • The A458 and A483 in the locality of the proposed ERF are cross border routes for holidaymakers and day-trippers from England to access Wales. In Spring and Summer, particularly during school-holidays, the volume of traffic on these roads increases hugely. On Friday afternoons and Saturday mornings it is not unusual for lengthy queues of vehicles heading west to build up between Buttington Cross - Trewern ie past the proposed ERF. In Spring and Summer traffic volumes at the three key junctions named in paragraph 8.3.3 also increase leading to queuing. • Being an agricultural area, the number of farm vehicles using the roads also increases in Spring and Summer. Summary: In my opinion this proposed ERF would make existing highway safety problems worse and adversely affect existing transport links. I wish to suggest that modelled data for traffic growth based on an evaluation of existing conditions recorded during late July and/or August is required to inform a satisfactory Traffic Impact Assessment. The site at Buttington Quarry is inappropriate. An ERF should be located at a more appropriate site, close to sources of waste and where the pre-existing local road infrastructure is better suited to cope with the HGV traffic generated. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Karon Hulse
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Linda Whitehouse
"I object to the Buttington Energy Recovery Facility (ERF) on a number of grounds. Firstly, there is now a moratorium on these large incinerators in Wales. Secondly, Powys has a high recycling rate so does not produce anywhere near the amount of waste predicted to be delivered to the facility. Thirdly there are some priceless archaeological sites within a short distance of the proposed site which should not be compromised. Fourthly, there are some key protected species in the area which have protection from the Biodiversity Action Plan (or BAP) including slow worms. Finally, can we be reassured that the applicants will have to submit accurate modelling of the smoke and emission plumes from the facility/chimney taking prevailing winds and local topographical and meteorological conditions into account. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
M Tinsley
"See the attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Michael Ryan
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig "
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Michael Ryan
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Michelle venables
"I am writing with my views against the proposed Broad energy incinerator to be located at Buttington. I have lived in Trewern all my life and bought my own house here 20years ago, we are a family of 5 [REDACTED] * Trewern is an up and coming village with new plans of over 40 homes being built in the area. We have an amazing thriving local school in Trewern with over 100 children in attendance. Since covid has hit the school have gone above and beyond making sure the children are learning and spending more time outside. So these children will be more exposed to the pollutants in the air and due to this being a valley and low lying cloud that will hold the pollution over 90% of the houses and school. Two years ago a lovely thriving cafe opened up in Trewern employing local people and is doing amazingly well and catching all the tourism coming into Wales, I’m not sure people are going to want to stop and sit while looking at the incinerator flume breathing pollution in. We also have an abundance of wildlife in the area and a big local farming community which will be affected by the noise and pollution. * On speaking to broad energy they said it would create jobs but on further discussion it will only fetch 30 permanent jobs to which will only be specialised with relevant qualifications. I have also called around other incinerator sites to ask about apprenticeships in the incinerators and was told they only have room for one at a time or they weren’t taking them due to health and safety issues on sites so it isn’t going to help with employment locally. * The main a458 is for many a gateway to Wales and is a busy route for many tourists coming into Wales, work vehicles 24hrs a day (HGVs, vans, people travelling to and from work) and local residents and a large farming community. Either side of the proposed site for the incinerator are 2 bridges Buttington river bridge which isn’t built for two HGVs passing and many stop and let one through etc, the other is cefn railway bridge a black spot for accidents. Cefn bridge has seen two accidents over the last 18months where HGVs have hit and damaged the bridge causing it to have traffic lights for over an extended period of time. So taking this into account HGVs will have to cross either bridge to get to the site bringing more heavy traffic to the road infrastructure that can’t cope now. We see so many times through the year traffic backed up from welshpool through Buttington Trewern Middletown and into Shropshire, so when you add the amount of the HGVs extra coming and going to the incinerator it will put a strain on the road infrastructure and emergency service which will have to deal with the on going traffic problems and accidents. Broad energy have not included cefn bridge in their traffic survey but say that a percentage of waste will becoming from England leaving us wondering how are they getting the waste to the site due to the other local road infrastructures from England which hold many more accident black spots and high volume of traffic also. * Also including in this proposed site is 2 local haulage firms Speed welshpool ltd which have just increased their operating license to 22 HGVs and 22 trailers Jacktrans ltd have 5 HGVs and trailers. So the amounts of HGVs using the same entrance and route in and out of site is already at 27 HGVs. Adding to this will be all the HGVs delivering to the incinerator and also which Broad energy has not mentioned the extra HGVs that will be coming to collect the ash from the incinerator which will be sold on. This is a very busy route all year round and locals know they already have to leave earlier some days and some weekends it isn’t worth leaving the house due to the mass of traffic. * Wales is one of the biggest recyclers and only producing 20,000 tonne non recyclable waste and now supermarkets are cutting back on non recyclable waste also with the aim for Wales to be 0 by 2050 leaving no need for a 200,000 tonne incinerator, especially when there is an large incinerator based 35 minutes drive from the Buttington site to shrewsbury industrial site. Buttington is not an industrial site with an adequate road infrastructure it is a site metres away from many houses and a thriving school. If the incinerator is needed then I do believe another site which is industrial with better road infrastructure and less houses and school in close range. Many thanks for taking the time to read "
Members of the Public/Businesses
Miriam Turner
"My views AGAINST the proposed broad energy incinerator to be located in Buttington I have many concerns which fuel my complete objection against this site * It is less than 1/2mile away from a busy school that has over 100+ children in attendance and due to the effects of covid children are spending more time outside learning. So the pollution from the incinerator will be over the school and all these children, which there are also children with asthma at the school. The cloud/fog sits most days in the valley so the many houses and school will be in this line of the incinerator plume so the health of many people in the valley and beyond will be affected by this. Trewern is a village that is growing well with plans for another 40 houses being built which adds more people’s health and also put off people buying houses in the area. * The road infrastructure is not adequate for the volume of HGVs that are going to added for the incinerator, we have two bridges either side of the site, Buttington river bridge which is not wide enough for two HGVs to pass and on the other side is cefn bridge which is a known black spot for accidents. Cefn bridge has over the past 2years been made single file with lights due to damage from accidents with HGVs and these lights have been up for 6months each time. * There already 27 HGVs running in and out of the site which the road only just copes now without adding so many more HGVs to the route and entrance. This is the main route into Wales for many tourists and during tourist season we often see queues from welshpool through Buttington Trewern and into Shropshire so adding so many HGVs to this is going to put a lot of stress on so many services in the long run. * Wales only produces 20,000 tonne of non recyclable waste and aiming to be 0 by 2050 so I can’t see the need for an incinerator placed on the border of Wales in a village not an industrial site, especially when there is a large incinerator 35 minutes drive away in shrewsbury. Many thanks for taking the time to read Miriam"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Morrell, D
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr and Mrs Vellam
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Onions, K H
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
P Carter
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Parry, J
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Patrick Watters
"Dear Sirs,I am writing to object to the above planning application for an incinerator at Buttington Quarry. Not only does it run in direct contravention of the government's own targets in relation to lowering carbon emmissions, but it poses a very real danger in the contamination of air, water and soil to those, such as me, who live locally. There is also the very real possibility that what is now an area known for it's clean air and water will become a dumping ground for refuse,brought by a constant stream of articulated lorries from far and wide, and all the pollution and noise that that involves. Please use common sense and refuse this application, there are much more creative and environmentally sensitive ways of dealing with refuse than this. Yours Sincerely Patrick Watters"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Perkins, FS
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Peter Rodway
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Reed, G
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
Richard Leighton
"A big no and everything about it, like roads too small, the pollution and the waste is from far away in this the midlands. "
Members of the Public/Businesses
r j lewis on behalf of Russell lewis
"To Whom It May Concern, DNS/3214813 The incinerator hasn’t been proposed on a regional ‘needs’ basis and there isn’t sufficient waste to burn locally. My concern is that waste will be shipped over long distances to be burnt in the middle of the beautiful countryside. Cefn Bridge is a crunch point literally and there have been many accidents there over the years. It won’t be long before someone dies and the increased HGV traffic for the incinerator will make this more and more likely. The developers haven’t taken into account the fact that waste will have to be shipped over long distances and the infrastructure around Buttington won’t be able to handle this kind of industry. It should be on an industrial estate near bigger roads and better transport links. The impact on areas of historical interest surrounding the proposed incinerator site have been neglected such as Cefn Digoll and Bausley Hill. The incinerator will give an extremely poor impression to people visiting Wales. By putting heavy industry on this busy and currently beautiful border crossing, what first impression does this give about Wales? Yours Sincerely r lewis Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Seale, A & L
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Susan Morley
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Terman, AM
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Other Statutory Consultees
response has attachments
Trewern Community Council
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Turner, E
"Please see attached document / Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Christine Hilditch
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
GA Trevor Jones
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Idris & Judie Andrew
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Jean Jones
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
John & Adela Johnson
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Judith Andrew
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr & Mrs Saunders
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Mr & Mrs Trevor Jones
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Welshpool Town Council
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Clwyd-Powys Archaeological Trust
"Please see attachment"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Simon Wootton
"Please see attached document/Gweler y ddogfen atodedig"
Members of the Public/Businesses
response has attachments
Natural Resources Wales
"Please see attachment"