PROTECTING THE FUTURE
PLANNING RESPONSE TO LOUGH NEAGH INCINERATOR
OVERVIEW SUMMARY
In a detailed and comprehensive planning response, Professor Sir George Bain, Mr Michael High, BSc and Ms Aileen Smyth, BL contend that the submission by Rose Energy to build an incinerator in the Glenavy area is an ill-considered and fundamentally flawed proposal.
The conclusion reached is that the proposal is wrong in crucial areas of planning consideration, and on that basis alone should be immediately rejected by the Planning Service.
PLANNING APPLICATION
Recognising that wider influences are at play, however, the authors call on the Planning Service to recommend to the Minister that a Public Inquiry is the only way to ensure that the public voice is heard and the true facts are revealed.
The NI Executives’ stated intention is to bring Government closer to the people and this objective has been underlined with the recent support for a Public Inquiry by the DARD Minister, Michelle Gildernew, the local MP Jeffrey Donaldson, and Lisburn Borough Council in whose area the incinerator would be built.
In a Public Inquiry the facts can be fully explored in an open and transparent forum.
The analysis of the Rose Energy proposal demonstrates that it is a poor technical submission that fails on almost every point of substance relevant to the planning process.
Essentially this failure comes down to three areas where the company are fundamentally wrong. The authors contend that three wrongs do not make a right, especially when it comes to a decision to invest £30 million of government money in a private-sector scheme.
WRONG TECHNOLOGY
Of all the options available, the Rose Energy proposal is the
- Least efficient form of energy generation because it is not a Combined Heat & Power plant and will operate at only 30% efficiency.
- Produces the highest levels of toxic emissions from the waste disposal process.
- Generates toxic ash that has to be transported to a suitable landfill for hazardous waste.
In addition
- Sustainability in the amount of local poultry litter available to fuel this power station has not been proven: about 100,000 tonnes are available against a requirement of 220,000 tonnes.
- No independent, rigorous, comparative research into alternatives to incineration for the poultry industry has been undertaken.
- At least three viable alternative processes to incineration exist, including Autoclaving that could be in place for farmers within a year.
WRONG LOCATION
Of all the locations available, the Rose Energy proposal
- Creates the most damage to Northern Ireland’s tourist and recreation resources.
- Has the worst environmental impact, particularly on water resources and on farming through dioxin-testing of dairy cattle.
- Deliberately avoids locating an industrial process in an industrial area, preferring instead a designated Area of High Scenic Value
- Breaks most of the relevant planning statements and policies, particularly those concerned with human health, nature conservation, rural character and visual impact, roads and traffic, as well as planning guidelines for the location of an incinerator
Having commissioned separate expert opinion on the issue of site selection, we are also commissioning a full site selection survey to prove this point to a public inquiry.
WRONG ECONOMICS
The Rose Energy proposal requires
- The highest level of direct government support to make it economically viable, namely a £30 million pump-priming injection to encourage private financing.
- Significant levels of indirect government support to bring the local roads infrastructure up to the necessary standards.
- So far undisclosed levels of investment to connect the company’s scheme to the electricity grid.
CONCLUSION
Because the company’s incinerator is the wrong technology, would be in the wrong location, and employs the wrong economics, it is not in the public interest – the interests of poultry farmers, beef and dairy farmers, residents and tourists, and the government of Northern Ireland.
Download the full BHS paper, click on the link below