Jump to content

Narrowband

What's the best way to 'fight' this?


Cjg

Recommended Posts

Apologies for the use of the word 'fight', but I think in the end it will be.

There's a proposal to build a large 'waste lagoon' at 275 metres from the observatory at Norwich Astro Society. There'll be the stench of ammonia, the extra lighting that will seriously impact the sky from Seething. The society were not officially informed, so have just until the 20th of this month to object. We've made a start, but I'd really like to hear from anyone who has been in this situation before. The application is at http://eplanning.norfolk.gov.uk/PlanAppDisp.aspx?AppNo=C%2F7%2F2015%2F7014 .

Thank you in advance,

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 42
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Hello Chris.

I wish you luck with this one!. The Astronomy Centre has been in a similar situation for some time now to try and prevent being ringfenced by 125m high wind turbines. Despite lengthy objection meetings, public outcry and being turned down flat by local Planning, the proposals have been initiated. We are dealing with a large multinational company whom the Secretary of State consider to be operating in the national interest and in line with government policy on renewable energy and positively "rubber stamped" the appeal. In fairness, one section of the operators has been in discussion with us to try and mitigate the problem, the only successful result would be for us or them to relocate, neither of which is likely to happen!

I would suggest that you present your objections ASAP, hopefully there will be other public objection  and if the proposal offers little to the locality it may well be turned down. If this happens and the company feels it is worth pursuing then they will most likely appeal, this can hold up matters for some time. Assuming this is the sequence of events it will give you more time to strengthen your objection. I would also recommend that you contact the company directly to start a dialogue to better inform them of the potential effect the proposal would have on your operation.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was probably an environmental study done before the project was approved. If you can find any flaws in that, like an endangered plant or animal has been overlooked, you can fight the proposed dump on that ground.

For example: a rare hamster was used to block a big project in the Netherlands, even though the same hamster is abundant in Belgium, just a few kilometres away.

Korenwolf_1.0.jpg

Korenwolf, image by Agnieszka Szeląg. From anw dictionary: http://anw.inl.nl/article/korenwolf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was probably an environmental study done before the project was approved. If you can find any flaws in that, like an endangered plant or animal has been overlooked, you can fight the proposed dump on that ground.

For example: a rare hamster was used to block a big project in the Netherlands, even though the same hamster is abundant in Belgium, just a few kilometres away.

Korenwolf_1.0.jpg

Korenwolf, image by Agnieszka Szeląg. From anw dictionary: http://anw.inl.nl/article/korenwolf

Although I've not been involved with this sort of thing in terms of astronomy, I have been involved with "fighting" a state board through my job.

I agree the best approach - at least initially - is to review their approval process from the very begininng to find out if there were any breeches of procedure. Oftentimes in their zeal to push things through, certain requirements such as notification of interested parties are ignored. Also, if there was any math, statistics, etc. used to justify the approval - run the numbers yourself. That's what we did & ended up finding big discrepancies in their math. Of course the main thing is to get the word out & show up in numbers at all the meetings to speak against it. Make sure you have data to back up your position & generally make it as uncomfortable as possible for them to move forward. We even got a TV station to show up at one of the public hearings & government officials hate it when the media shows up waving cameras in their face :)

Basically, make as much noise, with as many people as you can & look for flaws in the approval process they used while gathering facts in support of your position that are verifiable & indisputable...

Good luck and don't give up even if it looks like you could never win!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Chris

Looking at the planning application, the main applicant appears to be an estate; there's a chap named on the application. Clearly I don't know the specific circumstances, but it seems to me unlikely that you're dealing with a faceless corporate here. It might be worth engaging with the estate / individual concerned. I've worked with a few of these sorts before (often very wealthy "old money" farming families who have branched out into new projects to offset challenging commodity prices) and my experience is that they often care a lot about local views and opinions. They often feel like they're the custodian of something more than just the family silver - local livelihoods and quality of life etc. It's perfectly possible that they've / he's never even considered that people might be using the area for night-time observing.

It's also possible that they have some alternative land that they might be able to offer to set the observatory up on. It's not without disruption - granted - but there might be the makings of a sensible solution. But it will need engagement, I think, with the individual concerned. Inviting them to an observing session might help!

All the best with your efforts

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have a read through the National Planning Policy Framework and also your local Council's planning policies.

Could check the Council one for statements for protection of local amenities, then could check for any supporting statements in the NPPF.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

in support of others comments above - also look to identify allies with a recognisable profile.  Maybe academics from several universities with expertise in the area (of whatever kind ranging from environmental to law and beyond).

The FAS was mentioned in another thread  a week or so ago - it might be worthwhile contacting them to see if they can refer you to other groups who have had similar situations arise.

michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've had a quick look through the plans.  Seems fairly clear that it's a storage facility for the output from anaerobic digestion plants where it can be held prior to being spread on fields as a fertiliser.

Why do you believe there will be a "stench of ammonia"?  The plans claim that the system will be completely sealed from the external environment and that no exchange of gas should take place whatsoever.

Also, as it's purely a storage facility, why would it be lit at all?  I can't really see the need unless deliveries will take place at night (which seems unnecessary, but is something that should be checked).  I can't find any indication of any form of lighting on the plans and I think it ought to be present for development in a rural area.  Note that the environmental statement says:

  "Artificial lighting should be standardised within the development plans where it cannot be otherwise reasonably avoided. In instances where it is deemed necessary, it should be designed and positioned to minimise any adverse impacts on the retained surrounding vegetation. Such measures include the use of hoods and cowls and directional lighting away from adjacent areas of scrub / trees."

On the basis of what I can read (and I've not waded through it all :) I'd suggest that you're wrong to oppose it.  I think your first actions should be to contact the agent working on the behalf of the applicant and politely ask if they can supply details of when deliveries are expected and what lighting if any will be present and when it will be in use (up to 6pm on weekdays during the winter might not be unreasonable).  I'd also talk to the council and ask whether it's possible and or reasonable to request restrictions on lighting and any deliveries outside normal weekday business hours.  Councils responsible for rural areas are often sensitive to such matters.

Unless you know something that is seriously inconsistent with the submitted plans, I'd suggest you have far more chance of achieving a satisfactory outcome for the astro society if you try to work politely and calmly with the applicant to firstly properly understand the impact it is likely to have and then to minimise its effect on the observatory.  I see no value in "going off on one" and getting everyone wound up and at each others' throats.  I've watched that happen numerous times around here and it never ends happily for anyone.

Certainly making wild claims about the effects of the development that are clearly inconsistent with the statements in the planning application without strong evidence to back you up will just make you look like an idiot and you'll never get taken seriously.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also skimmed through some of the documents.

Sounds like air quality is covered.

I think your only problem might be light pollution.

I'm guessing you already have traffic at night on the nearby roads, this will  increase particularly at harvest time and could be at any time of day or night, it might be convenient for the operators to do deliveries at night - find out, try and restrict to office hours?

The site lighting as described is very hard to gauge, could be a disaster for you.

All they really need is some light at the point where the tankers couple up to the lagoon feed, but they may want extensive perimeter lighting, I doesn't say - find out?

Good luck

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're perfectly within your rights to oppose it & don't blame you for doing so. Oftentimes those who don't perceive something as a problem aren't going to be impacted anyway and would probably feel differently if it were being proposed across the street from their house or observatory. I've read the letters of opposition submitted so far & they make some valid points. It looks like there's some historical significance to the site as well as tourism in addition to the astronomical society & airport. It also sounds like the applicant has other sites available but wants to locate here as a matter of convenience for their operations so my question would be - why here - what's so attractive about this particular site? The language stating there will be no odor "under normal operations" raises a red flag in my mind and their justification for removing the hedge row along the road seems a little iffy to me (recently planted?).

You may not win but that's better than sitting idly by doing nothing and wishing later that you had. It sounds like you're dealing with a powerful business entity and it will likely take a sustained & determined effort to make a difference. I'd say keep the letters of opposition pouring in and don't back down if your goal is to stop the lagoon. But if your only concern is not to upset the applicant or local authorities then let them do whatever they want & I'm quite certain they'll be happy to oblige.

The plans show the height above grade as 3 meters which doesn't sound all that "low-lying" to me. It's going to stick out like a sore thumb as it's overall footprint is pretty big...

Anyway, good luck & keep us posted...  :smiley:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments and feedback. The roads as they are currently will not cope with the large lorries. Also the existing lagoons have been reported as leaking and producing a strong smell of ammonia, and so yes, our society will oppose it and encourage others to do so.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for your comments and feedback. The roads as they are currently will not cope with the large lorries. Also the existing lagoons have been reported as leaking and producing a strong smell of ammonia, and so yes, our society will oppose it and encourage others to do so.

Chris

If the roads will not cope with large lorries why does the highways authority consider the road suitable for HGVs (since they claim quite clearly that this is the case)?  Just stating that they're not suitable doesn't make it so.  If you wish to challenge the application on those grounds then you need to show that the roads don't actually meet the criteria that the HA set for such roads.  Also, it's all very well to stay "the roads aren't suitable for the trucks", but that's not a very strong argument if you don't know what type and size of truck will be used.

Comparison with the existing lagoons is largely irrelevant.  This is a different storage system for a different material.  The existing lagoons appear to be open for storage of animal waste from cleaning out barns.  They're not much more than open sewers.  I'm not surprised they stink of ammonia and I think it's a very unpleasant way to store the waste.  Material that has been through an AD unit is completely different.  For a start I don't think it should be high in ammonia because anything that is won't work in an AD plant.  As far as I recall the ammonia is toxic to the methanogenic bacteria  (actually they're not bacteria, but not dissimilar) required for AD to work.  I'll see if I can check that though as I know a few people who work in the AD field.  They also clearly state that the facility will be double-bunded to protect against leaks.

As far as I can see the application looks pretty well-considered which is perhaps no surprise  given that it isn't the first one that the agents have submitted and had approved.  Unless there's something in it that is materially wrong and that you can demonstrate is materially wrong or there are locally-relevant issues that have not been properly considered then I reckon it stands a fair chance of being granted.  Any minor objection that might cause the application to fail would probably be dealt with by resubmitting having resolved that issue.

Based on my experience of a number of planning applications local to my own house that people didn't want probably more down to NIMBYism or because they're just opposed to change than for any genuine fault with the application, opposing a reasonable application will generate a huge amount of ill-will and stress and if the applicant is granted permission then he will be totally unwilling to enter into any discussions about moderating the impact of the development on those who opposed it.  Do not underestimate how deeply unpleasant this can become.  I've seen neighbours who have been on good terms for years behave in ways that beggar belief in such situations to the point where it ruined all their lives.

On the other hand, if you engage politely and calmly with the people involved, get the facts about what is happening rather than random opinion that isn't based on fact and try to work with the applicant and his agent then you do at least stand a chance of ending up with a result that works for everyone.

I think you should first press the planning officer for more time to respond as you weren't properly notified.  There's law covering the process and he'll have to comply with that.  Then I'd get talking to the agent and the applicant and get a good idea of what they're actually planning.  As the agent has done one of these systems before, perhaps you could get to have a look at it so you know what they're talking about.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for the record...

There's a 20+ acre solar site visible from my house that caused uproar when it was proposed.  It went ahead and it's not exactly pretty to look at, but I remain on good terms with the farmer who owns the land, he answered my concerns about it and in two or three years trees will have grown to the point where it's unlikely I'll even know it's there.

Another farmer applied to build two small organic chicken sheds nearby (we're the closest house to the site, about 600m away).  That one got really nasty to the point of violence being quite seriously threatened against the farmer involved.  There were people complaining because they might be able to see the top of the gable end of one shed from their living room window a mile and a half away and there were all sorts of complaints about the (claimed) unavoidable noise and the smell and the lighting.  Again I spoke with the farmer involved, found that my concerns were unfounded and told him I wasn't opposed to it.  The application was approved anyhow and the sheds were built.  We don't even notice they're there.  You could drive past the entrance and not even realise what was there.  You can stand on the hillside opposite and you have to look quite hard to find them in the landscape now the screening has grown.  Yet some people nearby got so wound up by the entire process and in opposing the project that it caused them health problems and they ended up selling their house and moving, all for something that actually has no impact on their lives whatsoever.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Something else that has just struck me...  Beware the law of unintended consequences...

Let's say the road can be demonstrated to be unsuitable for lorries.  As the route to the airfield appears to involve travelling along exactly the same route as proposed for this new development, how will fuel get delivered to the airfield?

Also, I notice there's a brewery between the observatory site and the proposed development site.  How do they get their deliveries and have their produce and waste collected?  It's not a huge brewery, but it doesn't exactly like they're a hobby operation either.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update to this, attended a packed parish council meeting where the rep from the farm gave the reasons why they need the waste lagoon, however, by their own reasoning, there will be an extra 1000 30 ton lorries using the roads per year, just to carry out the digestate product. The locals are naturally concerned and I suspect this will not be a quick process. Currently the Norfolk County Council web site has an intermittent fault and "loses" comments added to the application. The MP for Seething is now involved and tonight we are hosting the local counsellor for the area so that he can see why we are objecting to the development.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just to add to Chris' comment, the planning states up to 8 tankers per day but at the meeting this was shown to be deliveries only. The 1000 extra tankers not mentioned on the planning will be when the digestate is being pumped onto the fields and will be 24/7 for about a week at a time, twice a year. No lighting on site (we are told) but that infers that the tankers will have lights suitable to facilitate safe loading and spillage control at night.

The airfield is for light aircraft only so fuel deliveries are infrequent, during the day. The route is used buy the occasional bus. The HGV access is restricted to 7.5 tonnes later down the lane. The Brewery is a micro brewery and does not have major HGV movements.

AndyG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd weigh in as I am an activist, but I'm unfamiliar with your laws, etc. But I'll give you a fast sociology-lesson: Homeowners don't want to see their homes lose value. Having a breeze full of rotting waste and ammonia will lower property-values. Write up a leaflet explaining this and go paper the area - on windshield's of cars, in front-doors, etc. Then organize a meeting to write a position-paper & proposal.

Take no prisoners -

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You could write to the Secretary of State and ask for an Environmental Impact Assessment to be carried out if one hasn't been done already.  That should give you all the data on wildlife, trees, gas and vapour, lighting, noise and traffic.

You wont win this solo so you need to build alliances with other locals and get some facts down straight.  As already said statements such as 'it will ruin the area' will hold no water - you need to get proof that the local environment will be damaged.

Bear in mind light pollution is now see in most authorities as a very real issue.  Bear in mind twith this that a Council is not a single entity.  Its a group of different entities operating under a single umbrella.  Planning normally has a Chinese wall between it and other departments because it has to remain neutral in the face of the Council putting its own plans forward. It may be worth getting the Councils own Environmental team looking at this as well. They may be unaware or not prioritising it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

An update to this, and thank you for the advice and offers of help.

We've had local councillors visit our site, there were of the view that we would not be badly affected; that said, the locals now know that there could be a massive increase in road use in the area (an extra 1000 30 ton lorry vehicles per year) a retired local councillor has written an objection and the last surviving Battle of Britain Ace (he lives in the area) too.

So far the press are uninterested / unwilling to get involved - taking on an Earl is probably always going to be tough, but there are many more objections now.

Thanks

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An update to this, and thank you for the advice and offers of help.

We've had local councillors visit our site, there were of the view that we would not be badly affected; that said, the locals now know that there could be a massive increase in road use in the area (an extra 1000 30 ton lorry vehicles per year) a retired local councillor has written an objection and the last surviving Battle of Britain Ace (he lives in the area) too.

I'm not sure if I would describe less than 3 extra lorries per day as a "massive increase", to be honest. Not unless they all turned up at the same time! :grin:

 a retired local councillor has written an objection and the last surviving Battle of Britain Ace (he lives in the area) too.

If the objection is valid, then it doesn't matter who pens it. Just because he is a veteran adds nothing to the argument. In fact, it well may work against it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.