Suffolk council advised to reject Beccles AD application

The plant received objections from county councillors Caroline Topping and Ash Lever as well as Shadingfield, Sotterley, Willingham, Ellough, Worlingham and North Cove Parish councils.

East Suffolk council (Planning), Civil Aviation Authority (aerodrome advisory team), Suffolk Wildlife Trust and 137 third parties also objected. 

The planning application did however also receive 13 letters of support. 

The planning application is for an anaerobic digestor with a proposed feedstock limit of 100,000 tonnes of food waste per annum. 

Objections  

In a report that is to go before the Development and Regulation Committee on 25 April, it suggests planning permission should be denied for several reasons: 

• The proposed development conflicts with policies written in the Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan 2020 
•  Storing explosive gas near Beccles Aerodrome’s runway end significantly alters the risk profile for potential emergencies like engine failures after take-off 
• The location falls within open countryside, which contradicts policies in the 2020 Suffolk Minerals and Waste Local Plan, as well as policies in the 2019 Waveney Local Plan 
• Insufficient data on building-induced turbulence, gas venting, and flaring  
• Inadequate information addressing the landscape and visual impact of the proposal  
• Lack of information concerning the local water environment  
• Inadequate data on air quality  

‘Credible’ 

Ms Topping and Mr Lever write in their joint response: “We request SCC to A. defer until cumulative social and environmental impacts of this proposed plant in the context of the existing and additionally proposed plants is assessed.  

“B. to approve the application only if it can be shown that the cumulative social and environmental impacts of this plant, taken together with those of the existing and additionally proposed plants, are acceptable. 

“Again, we urge SCC to defer until the concerns above have been addressed. We also urge SCC not to hesitate either to attach strong conditions to the application or to reject it, should to proponent not be able to demonstrate that it both understands and has credible plans in place to deal with these concerns.”