The application was pulled from the agenda of the 2^nd December meeting of the planning committee at the very last minute. I wrote to Joe Nugent (planning officer) for clarification and his reply was, “In terms of the application being withdrawn from the committee agenda this is due to additional information being submitted by the applicant. This additional information requires full consideration by the Council prior to the application be (sic) presented at the committee.”

It seems that we are now in that dark period where meetings are held behind closed doors, compromises are made (a different shade of green paint, slates on the tank roofs, playground facilities, promises to never use domestic food waste or energy crops, promises easily made but hard to keep) although the plans just put up on the website show that the drying shed has been axed. This does make the location of the site even more stupid as there is now presumably no use for the copious amounts of heat produced by the CHP. Hint: that’s why it’s a good idea to have a small AD plant beside your farm building and losing the shed doesn’t make it any less of an eyesore.

I have been assured that the changes will probably not affect the recommendation for refusal in the planning report which is still available at http://committees.northumberland.gov.uk/aksnorthumberland/images/att19783.pdf  but it will be rewritten. Assuming that the first possible available planning meeting will be on January the 6^th, 2015, we now have only two inputs into the process, the deadline for more objections was extended by 14 days and there is the five minute opposition speech allowed in the meeting, which is being organised by Warden Parish Council.

I am a natural optimist but there is big money to made by this development. £80,000 a month clear profit  at the Silloth plant that probably has higher costs as Duncan Findlay (an engineer and a rigorous , disciplined manager)  is  doing the job properly.  The applicants are likely to make millions from the overly generous feed in tariff and they will not give up without a fight. They will almost certainly put up a very strong  and  ‘professional’  defence. I suspect they will roll out strong arm tactics as Prism depends for its consultancy reputation on aggressively achieving these sorts of planning permissions.

If you have anything to add to the objections, now is the time to do it. If you have anything that you strongly feel should be raised in those precious five minutes at the planning meeting, get in touch with Warden Parish council  http://www.wardenpc.co.uk/WPC.htm  .  I believe Steve Heminsley is dealing with it but the parish clerk, Robert Macfarlane should be able to direct your request to the right  person. If anything surprising happens over the Christmas, New Year period and the application is on the agenda for the 6^th January, it can be discussed  on  the Loomio group here,   https://www.loomio.org/g/InoJQRtV/fourstones-ad-group   It’s a sort of group decision making tool,  still in beta (trial version) but it works really well. Have fun.

This is a quick reminder for all who may be interested that the planning committee meeting for this proposal is happening on the 2nd December in the Council Chamber, County Hall, Morpeth at 6pm. If you have objected you should have received the letter but I know some haven't (have attached a copy). The planning report is here 

with the recommendation that the application should be refused permission. (yippeee!!).

This does not mean that the committee will agree with that recommendation. If you want to attend the meeting that would be great. If you want to add to the objections you can still do so right up until the committee date but obviously the sooner the better here

I understand that Warden Parish Council is organising someone to speak for that precious five minutes mentioned in the letter (isn't democracy wonderful) ably supported by the indefatigable Michael Guthrie who has been amazing in his tireless forensic analysis of the application, and another big-hitter.

Global People's Climate March.

Sunday 21st September, thousands upon thousands around the world marched in the hope that politicians and corporations will get their act together and do something about climate change. Newcastle hosted an enthusiastic crowd with several familiar faces from Hexham but unsurprisingly no members of the Fourstones anaerobic digester scheme. Unsurprisingly as one of those involved is reliably quoted  as saying, "I couldn't give a f#@k about the environment".

Maybe we should really be marching on Northern Power Grid and demanding it back. Unfortunately our dimwitted politicians gave it away for buttons in a frenzy of privitisation back in the nineties and it is now owned by Berkshire Hathaway, a US company that, last time I looked, was worth 50 billion dollars but it is probably far more than that now. Its CEO is Warren Buffett, worth 63 billion dollars, the third richest man in the world, so it's nice to know that part of the reason we are having this Anaerobic Digester dumped on this plot is in order to make him even richer.

Warren Buffet is against distributed generation systems like the Energiewende scheme in Germany. The advantage of a distributed system is that you can develop local microgrids  so that cooperatively owned solar, wind and ad plants (using waste!) can be run by local communities and the heat and power can be used most efficiently, (up to 69% of power can be lost in long distance transmission). If we had that infrastructure we could all be generating power in a low impact and environmentally friendly way but instead we have the imposition of unjustifiably huge AD plants like the one proposed, or the vast wind farm applications like the one threatened for Talladh-a-Bheithe on Rannoch Moor by another land owner/generator syndicate. Where it all goes wrong is when the farmer (at Burmoor Farm near Wark for example) has the great idea of installing a farmscale AD plant on his land and then goes to Northern Power Grid (aka Warren Buffett, the third richest man in the world) only to be told that he has to cough up a couple of million quid to get connected to the grid because Warren doesn't want any competition thank you. The only way to make it happen is to scale up your project and put it right next to an expensively landscaped substation, miles from anyone who could use the heat produced by your CHP unit and forced to use energy crops as feedstock to generate enough return on the investment.

The deadline for objections is now the 4th November but probably best to get it in a few days ahead of the committee meeting so that someone has a chance to read it.

FYI this is the email from Joe Nugent:

Dear Adrian,

Please disregard the date on the website stating 18^th October 2014. This relates to the recent letter confirming the revision of the suffix to RENE and this letter did not afford a further notification period i.e. 21 days.

The 21 days notification period was set by the formal notification letters, site notices and press notice.

However, in terms of letters of objection, support or general representation these can be submitted right up until the application is presented at Committee. This is expected to be 4^th November 2014.

Kind regards,

Joe

Joe Nugent

Senior Planning Officer

Major Projects, Minerals & Waste

Where does it all go wrong?

Harper Adams AD plant explosion, Shropshire.

Where does it all go wrong? A brilliant idea, a small scale anaerobic digester for the farm, 250 KW of electricity and loads of useable heat. Feedstock sourced from farm waste and digestate output returned to the land. No environmental impact, no haulage, and compost pile emissions are immediately sequestered in the digester tank and the farm gets income from the feed in tariff and selling heat to neighbours. Doesn’t have to be farms, distributed generation schemes can use small scale AD/CHP combined with solar and wind renewables run by local cooperatives as happens in Germany, Denmark and many other countries.

Where does it all go wrong? The big energy companies have an enormous monopoly and it is in their interests to maintain business as usual. In Germany, a distributed generation system is possible because they have invested in their national grid so that local power schemes can be close to the point of use. Feed in tariffs benefit local communities and coops and discourage the creation of local fat cat landowners. This is power from the people, millions of people become competitors for the big energy companies, this is local power, this is green.

Where does it all go wrong? The big energy suppliers don’t want competition so instead of local tenant farmers having the infrastructure to run a small scale AD/CHP unit they will tend towards the large, hugely expensive 1 megawatt plant in a totally inappropriate location whose massive carbon footprint due to haulage of non waste energy crops are completely ignored. Heat generated is not used because it is too far from local communities but that’s OK because it is a license to print money for the local fat cats and who knows, maybe some of it will trickle down to the local community but don’t hold your breath.

Where does it all go wrong? This plant will cost roughly five and half to six million quid (possibly grant aided, attracting subsidies, loans guaranteed by government and definitely exploiting the feed in tariff (your taxes)), for that money we could have had five small scale 250 KWe AD/CHP units on local farms where they are most appropriate and can use waste with very low  carbon emissions. So the brilliant idea is hijacked by the parasitic snake oil salesmen who rake off a massive commission for their consultancy using a quite justified fear of climate change to appropriate precious resources. Our Government’s brainless enthusiasm for deregulated capitalism means that infrastructure is not invested in to encourage a distributed power system although they are quite capable of wasting billions on Trident or in bailing out the banks.

Where does it all go wrong? Prism planning consultants, the agents, have now conjured up pseudo scientific reports that prove that their s#@t doesn’t stink and that there will be no noise pollution (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBybq-qTVsI). All these consultants have to come up with the ‘right’ results or they won’t be hired again. Our local authority is forced into allowing the flouting of planning policies, the precious landscape of this area of outstanding natural beauty (which has an economic as well as a spiritual value), leased off to make a fortune for the developers. Private eye magazine has a column called Rotten Boroughs which highlights the abuses of the planning system which reinforces the fact that it is no longer fit for purpose, the whole country has become a collection of rotten boroughs particularly with the malign affect of the National Planning Policy Framework. I don’t blame the planning departments, they are underfunded, bullied, left toothless, stripped of powers and the professional skills needed to regulate the developers. The man fronting Prism (the agents) is an ex planning and environmental health officer  (gamekeeper turned poacher) and other like minded smart operators in the private sector can drive a bulldozer through what remains of planning democracy. The latest manoeuvre to exclude objections is to mysteriously change the planning reference number to make it just that little bit harder to register new objections. The planning reference number is no longer 14/02186/FUL but now 14/02186/RENE, you can use the search keyword Fourstones or try the link http://publicaccess.northumberland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=N832TTQSL3L00 

... unless they have moved it again, which they probably will as the deadline for receipt of objections is getting closer, 27^th September! Climate change is too important to leave in the hands of speculators, please sign the petition here 

... and attend the Global Peoples Climate March, starts 1330 outside Newcastle Library to the Civic Centre on Sunday 21^st September and other venues world-wide.

Humshaugh Parish council voted on the planning application on Wednesday night. The result is extraordinary beyond belief. Kirsten Francis chair wrote:

Hi Adrian
No need to apologise   I really do appreciate developments cause a great deal of concern and anxiety to people particularly when it affects them more directly.
However you are not going to like the outcome as the Parish Council are supportive of the development but would want some specific condition on permission with regard to preventing change of use to food waste and appropriate long term landscape plan. Having listened to the developers, the resultant discussion and reviewed the information you and others have circulated we do feel the major concerns are addressed or can be by conditions placed by the planning authority. In addition we feel there are some real benefits to the rural economy and it is a much needed source of green energy, -I am sure you will dispute that but it is way better than traditional coal/oil methods. Making these decisions is always the most challenging aspect of local democracy, we do take that responsibility seriously and look at evidence, understand local opinion but base our final response on the basic planning tenet that decision are based on whether it benefits the wider public interest even although there may be some individuals who may feel it is not in their interests. Fully understand you are not going to feel well served by this decision but hope you can at least appreciate we have taken our responsibility seriously Regards Kirsten

There are times when you just need to get some fresh air. So I went for a bike ride. Steve Baker of Prism Planning consultants (the agents) revealed  a list of supposed locations of farms supplying feedstock for the AD. Wark seemed the mostly likely average so  I rode from the proposed site to a likely farm near Wark. Burmoor appealed as it seemed most appropriate for a project that will burn more (geddit?) carbon based fuel, have a massive carbon footprint driven by perverse subsidies that as usual enrich the few and impoverish everyone, " the basic planning tenet that decisions are based on whether it benefits the wider public interest" as Kirsten states is most certainly not met. It should be the responsibility of the developer to prove that their project is carbon neutral (or negative) subject to satisfactory oversight not a wooly "presumption in favour of sustainability" as contained in the National Planning Policy Framework, which is a vague collection of platitudes designed to de-democratise the planning process. So the distance from the site to Burmoor is 15.7 kilometers by the most direct route. The best estimate I can find is 3kg of carbon released per tonne per kilometer assuming 29 tonne trucks are used. The application suggests (and probably underestimates ) 40,000 tonnes of feedstock to be shifted by truck which should result in 40,000x15.7x3=1884000kg=1884 tonnes of carbon released and that doesn't include the return journey. If you have some nitpicking objection to this calculation, criticism should only be in the form of a full life cycle analysis of the carbon footprint of the whole project.I Notice that Prism are now tending to suggest transport will involve tractors and trailers which produces far more carbon than a single HGV.

The application dresses itself up to appeal to the “presumption in favour of sustainable development” which it quotes  from the National Planning Policy Framework and claims that “AD plants are carbon neutral”. That is only true if they are farm scale units using animal wastes, slurries or their own surplus farm silage, or if they are located near to waste facilities and this is neither. This is not a farm scale unit, it covers an area of 3.5 hectares and describes its design as “unashamedly functional as is the case with all modern agricultural buildings”  can be compared to local modern farms and can be seen to be a massive industrial investment to generate a considerable return.

Examples of appropriately designed buildings near the site.

 Slurry and farm waste only generate 15-25 cubic metres of gas per tonne, grass silage 160-200m3, maize 200-220m3, potatoes 280-400 m3. So this 1 megawatt plant needs 25,000 tonnes of maize (for example, other feedstocks in even greater quantities as maize doesn't grow too well around here) which requires 450 hectares of high quality land to produce. It has been calculated that using these crops, 700 grams of CO2 are released for every KwH, this is similar to a coal fired power station, (compare the ecological cost of this 1 megawatt site with the installation of one 6 megawatt offshore wind turbine). This may not seem to be a planning issue but if the National Planning Policy Framework makes “a presumption in favour of sustainable development” then this is most certainly not sustainable and this application should be rejected and thrown out.

Wonderful piece of journalism in the Courant by Brian Tilley and objection of the week has to be the one from Bywell Estate office here

Planning democracy.

As you can see the parish council website is still advertising the meeting as starting at 7.30. Please contact anyone who was thinking of attending and give them the new time. I know three people who will not be able to come because of work/family commitments even though they had it in their diaries. If you want to make your feelings known please send last minute emails to Ms Vera O'Hagen, the clerk, to circulate to councillors. The email address is clerk.humshaugh@gmail.com

Inspirational objection letter of the day is for humshaugh parish council from Robert Macfarlane

Humshaugh parish council change of time.

Despite the parish council website still saying it starts at 1930 and in other places too, Kirsten Francis emailed to say..... (well instead of trying to paraphrase you might as well have the whole thing) 

Hi Adrian

Bit concerned that there are conflicting times out in the public domain for the start time of the Parish Council meeting. It is starting early on Wednesday, at 6.30 as we have Riverside Housing coming to tell us all about the application process for the new houses behind the George. This will be followed by the item on the Anaerobic Digester, probably about 7 pm. However in Humshaugh notes in the Courant  it is down as 7.30. Apologies for the confusion and worried people might think we are trying to avoid the debate so if you could let people know that would be very much appreciated.  We are also putting a notice in the shop window.  

Also Adrian, very aware feelings are running high over this topic but I would like to run an orderly meeting on Wednesday. People will be given the chance to say their bit but do ask that people try not let emotions take over, which I know is difficult but I will be managing the meeting quite firmly. The Parish Council does want to hear both sides before making a decision. 

Regards

Kirsten

So if you could pass this on to as many people as possible that would be fab and could you also make sure that everyone knows the new final date for receipt of objections is now September the 27th.

 Dryholme farm AD plant near Silloth, Cumbria. Despite having similar output Fourstones is strangely
proposed to be a  far larger site.

Two noisy CHP generators.

The two CHPs showing flat landscape, semi rural, lots of industrial units, wide roads and feedstock mostly
from own large farm, five mile radius.

Objection letter of the day has to go to the Scout association, you can read it here

tranqfinal1

Tranquility

I visited Dryholme farm near Silloth at the weekend and recorded the sound produced by the CHP generators. The racket is in the middle of this video. Please don't turn your headphone volume up too high. What I find most disturbing is not just the decibel  level but the sheer psychological relentlessness of it. Deeply disturbing. Duncan Findlay, (the owner/manager) explained one of the exhausts needed a weld after a backfire (what, they backfire as well!) but what remained was the sense that the low level bass rumble would travel a long way even if the top end probably drops off with distance, something that an unqualified, sound technician doing a sound map and survey for the application process is not going to take into consideration. There are some wonderful books on sound ecology by Bernie Krause which suggest a very violent human sound pollution drowning out the natural world, biophony, and despite repeated emails I can't find anyone to stick up for red squirrels and what effect this noise will have on all the other wild-life here?

If you live within 1.2 km of the site you should have received a new planning application notification letter, this is after we complained about how few people knew about the Fourstones AD. Why 1.2km? I have no idea, but it does mean that the public consultation is now extended to the 27th September. Phew.

We can now generate more brilliant objections to the application. Margaret Lewis from Fourstones is organising a planning objection letter writing surgery, details to follow. Did you know that everyone in your house can write an objection, it is not limited to one per household.

It's good to hear that the Courant is campaigning to get Northumberland chosen as one of the UK's best holiday destination but it's a shame that it isn't campaigning against the AD plant that is going to be the most appalling eyesore right at the heart of Hadrian's Wall Country. Write a letter to the editor (I have), you may have more luck.

Inspirational letter of objection today is from English Heritage, on the documents page here dated 4th September.

There is a very useful one page guide on how to object here
 http://planninglawblog.blogspot.co.uk/p/how-to-object.html
which has everything you really need to know.
Joe Nugent (senior planning officer) is doing a second notification letter delivery to houses within 1.2k from the site. He is now fully back at work and can catch up with emails which seemed to have mysteriously disappeared. He did point out that he is available to answer general questions Joe.nugent@northumberland.gov.uk  but he does not respond or reply to objections emailed to him but it's worth checking to see that your objection finds its way onto the documents page here although probably better to object using contact form, as above, after registering here but remember only 2000 characters including spaces.

Inspirational letter of objection from CPRE.

Warden Parish Council are Wonderful!

Warden parish council at Newbrough, voted against the planning application last night (yippee!) and openly discussed it (the chair included the public in accepting additions) and  formulated a statement that was quite strong in it's opposition. Although I doubt that it is strong enough in that it confined itself to "facts" something that doesn't seem to trouble the professional planning consultants at Prism (the agents).

There is big money behind this proposal, the council is concerned (terrified?) that a rejection would lead to an appeal and costs (thousands? tens of thousands? hundreds of thousands?) as happened at Bishop Auckland and the strong suspicion that even the council don't understand the complexities of the National Planning Policy Framework.

Maybe we need planning consultants to help our case, a sort of Michael Mansfield of the planning world, maybe there is one living in the valley somewhere who might be up for a pro bono, anyone in your network come to mind?

Kirsten Francis (chair of Humshaugh council) has just been in touch and  has checked with Planning and they can still submit comments as long as they are in by Friday 12th so the Fourstones AD will be discussed on Wednesday 10th at Humshaugh Village Hall (Supper Room) meeting starts at 7.30 p.m., all welcome.

URGENT! Please object now. Warden (Fourstones) AD/CHP planning application. Updated Introduction

Small farm-scale Anaerobic Digesters are not a problem, every farm should have one, but this scheme is a massive industrial installation, with an overbearing appearance, un-integrated into Park Shield Farm (not occupied by JFS Park Shield Biogas Ltd). The intention is to import slurry, manure and silage (at least 40,000 tonnes) to the factory from 20 or more miles away as local farmers will not supply the site. The probable (and unregulated) aim will be to use agricultural feedstocks like maize and grass to fill the tanks causing unsustainable competition for local farmers who need accessible land for affordable livestock feed. The competing AD plant in Hexham is already finding serious problems sourcing supplies, another AD plant is going to make matters far worse. This is not green sustainable development.

HGV traffic will be far in excess of the applicant’s unrealistic estimates, causing serious danger to all cyclists (including those on the hugely popular National Cycle Route 72 which passes through these quiet narrow lanes), endangering horse riders, runners and pedestrians on roads which are of restricted width and alignment. Cycle tourism and Hadrian’s Wall path bring millions of pounds into the local economy and the effect on tourism amenities and the visual impact on this World Heritage site and area of outstanding natural beauty would be devastating. The AD site dominates the view from Walwick which is one of the best viewpoints for Warden Law hill fort and the Tyne Valley for walkers on the Hadrian’s Wall trail. The planning statement claims the site cannot be overlooked but it IS highly visible from many viewpoints and houses and has high amenity and landscape value. Trees and hedgerows could not possibly shield a site of this size that includes tanks that are 14.7 meters high.

The applicants claim the noise pollution from the plant will be 65dB although 70db and above has been recorded at other similar plants, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, high even for an urban area but will cause serious disturbance at night in this rural setting with a noise footprint that extends to the campsite at Chollerford and Baden Powell’s first “Lookwide” scout camp at Carr edge and other tourist and residential accommodation. Disturbance from lorries, vibration and reversing alarms will add to the noise nuisance. The area is also home to endangered, protected red squirrels at both Chesters and Frankham Fell, ideal habitats which must not be disturbed by noise pollution so as to maintain their competitive advantage over grey squirrels. The site is also home to Badgers which are also protected. The applicant MUST comply with a 25dB maximum night time limit.

Despite all claims to the contrary and no matter how well maintained, AD plants inevitably release a foul stench, comparisons with ordinary farm yard odours are utterly misleading. The products of anaerobic digesters, including methane, are breathtakingly noxious most notably hydrogen sulphide, a rotten egg smell, causing unconsciousness at concentrations as low as 50 parts per million and death above that, and biogas can contain 500 to 30,000 ppm and above. At least two residents of Walwick suffer from Asthma so particulates and emissions could have a greater effect on their health. The statement that it will not give rise to unacceptable levels of odour because it is an enclosed system suggests an appalling complacency towards safety and inevitable accidental and incidental releases with obvious consequences downwind (South West prevailing wind and frequent Northerlies ensure a wide diffusion pattern) for businesses and tourism.

The site is said to slope ‘generally’ North West to South East in the planning application documents but the site actually spills onto a North facing slope leading to a stream. Local knowledge suggests serious run off from this slope into the stream which leads directly to the North Tyne. In the event of an explosion and complete loss of millions of litres of digestate as at Harper Adams College where bunding failed, the fragile ecosystem of the North Tyne could be destroyed, (digestate deprives river water of oxygen killing all life in the river). This application does not even intend to use bunding and profoundly underestimates the threat to the environment. There is no rigorous risk analysis for what is a large scale waste treatment plant that is a gross industrialization of the area with a high risk of contamination. There have been seven catastrophic failures of AD plants in nine months causing the design and construction of these tanks to be called into question by the British Standards Institute.

Prism planning consultants, the agents for JFS Park Shield Biogas Ltd, are renowned for their ‘aggressive’ planning strategies (see recent AD planning case at Bishop Auckland, rejected by council but won on appeal and given costs against what has recently been defined as one of the poorest regions in Europe!) but they are honorable men doing what they are paid to do. There is strangely no ‘artists impression’ in the planning documents and it is hard to visualize so I have done a quick sketch up on the plans (link below) , zoom in and the people and Volvo truck are to scale. The tanks are not, of course, going to be red but will be painted green, probably the only green thing about this project, and it will still be an eyesore.

Dodgy planning applications always go through in the summer when everyone is on holiday or busy on the farm. Did you go to the planning consultation meeting at Newbrough on Monday the 11th August? No? Hardly surprising as it was barely advertised. The deadline for comments expired on the 16th August but the planning case officer agreed an extension so please make your objections known on the Northumberland Planning Portal. You have to register before you can comment, only takes a minute, name, address and password, but don’t be put off by the misleading red bold type commandment that ‘comments cannot be submitted at this time,’ it opens up after you log in or you can write to the address below. Online objections are limited to 2000 characters including spaces (not words) so you have to be clear and concise. You can ask questions by emailing Joe Nugent, the planning case officer (links and address below) but he does not reply to emails, I suspect he is seriously understaffed. underpaid and under-resourced.

Montage: 1, Similar industrial unit. 2, Traffic accident blackspots, narrow, poorly maintained roads, walkers using road shortcut near Walwick Hall. 3, Viewpoints for tourists, 4, North facing slope from site. Stream at Walwick Grange, high flow in winter directly under bridge and into the Tyne. 5, Catastrophic failure at Harper Adams College polluting river.

Please object now! Unfortunately many who will suffer are tenants, employees, friends, business partners or investors of those involved and feel constrained about commenting. This plant will have profound consequences for the whole region so please do object wherever you are and relate your comments to planning issues with proof if possible, relevant photographs, research and evidence is vitally important. The motivations behind the scheme may all be quite worthy but the effects will be disastrous. If you are an investor please think again, there are far better causes to support and there are Ponzi schemes which offer less risk. Getting your investments out of carbon based industries is admirable but we must redefine potential risk based on the probability of future scenarios, the application does not demonstrate that the business is viable in the short or long term. Go green but make it appropriate technology in an appropriate location. The development would only be sustainable on an urban brown field site near good transport links. This proposal sets a very dangerous precedent for the community, businesses, ecosystem and a fragile local economy.

Ever hopeful

Adrian Brewster, Walwick.

Planning reference number: 14/02186/FUL
Address: Land North Of Fourstones Substation Fourstones Northumberland
Northumberland Planning Portal search page is athttp://publicaccess.northumberland.gov.uk/online-applications/
You can search for application using reference number or address.

write to: Central Registry Team, Development Management, Northumberland County Council, Planning Department, County Hall, Morpeth, Northumberland, NE61 2EF and give planning reference number 14/02186/FUL and your name and address.

Questions to: Joe Nugent by email at Joe.nugent@northumberland.gov.uk (....but he doesn't answer emails!)

(Update Monday 1st September 2014)

Hi

Nobody seems to be a hundred percent sure when the consultation period for this application comes to an end but the planning portal suggests the 8th September. Wall parish council have submitted a strong objection and Warden parish council are due to vote on Monday 1st of September, tonight 1900 at Newbrough town hall, all welcome, but the public won't be allowed to speak unless invited. Humshaugh parish council are not due to meet until Wednesday 10th of September which will possibly be too late. Unfortunately they have not responded to my emails. If evidence of strong feeling in Humshaugh parish is needed I am willing to go door to door and collect a petition but I really don't have the time. As mentioned above, a wide representative cross section of the parish have already submitted objections, for example; Geoff Roddam, Trevor Erskine-Meade, Charlie Hoult, David Harrison and, of course, my blather. What we really need is the full clout of Humshaugh parish council to join forces with Warden and Wall to sink this proposal.

This is not a "green" project whatever Prism Planning Consultants (the agents) would have us believe. The article by George Monbiot that hammers this point home is athttp://www.theguardian.com/environment/georgemonbiot/2014/mar/14/uk-ban-maize-biogas
and although the technology is reasonably well developed and appropriate for small farm scale projects there are serious problems with large commercial industrial projects (see the objection by Professor Roy Sandbach (cv is athttp://www.thehigherandfurthereducationshow.co.uk/speaker/professor-roy-sandbach/ ). on the planning portalhttp://publicaccess.northumberland.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?activeTab=documents&keyVal=N832TTQSL3L00
This is not a farm scale project and claims made in the planning application are grossly misleading (see Mary Hales (owner of Parkshields farm) objection.

This is more than just a run of the mill planning application, it is the thin end of a very dangerous wedge (an appropriate cliche) that abuses the mess created by the National Planning Policy Framework to exploit and industrialize rural areas.

It would be wonderful if Humshaugh could work with Wall and Warden parish councils to actively lobby the county council and planning committee to reject this application.

The biggest difference would be if the council could spread the word and more widely inform the community, to get people in the parish, all the parishes, involved. It's embarrassing that other similar campaigns (and there are many similar ones all over the country) have managed to get hundreds of objections, we have some but nowhere near enough.

It would also be good if Humshaugh and Warden would add serious objections on the planning portal as Wall parish council have done.

Ever hopeful

Adrian
Will finesse this blog post when I have some more time!