Would we be considered cynical?

10:10am Thursday 28th August 2008

Comments (1)   Have your say »

WHILE most of us were on holiday or taking time off, a planning application that affects our health, our city, our villages, our countryside and our community has snuck in to catch us unawares.

It was registered at the planning office on July 22 and immediately processed with a consultation period ending on August 12.

Would we be considered cynical if we hazarded a guess that this was deemed a good time to bury a hazardous application coming from a company under contract to the very same council that must determine the outcome of the proposal?

The proposal is for the construction and operation of an open windrow green waste composting facility: office/welfare facility, storage building, weighbridge, hardstanding process area, car parking, ancillary infrastructure and landscaping. It would provide for the open composting of 12,000 tonnes a year of green waste from council recycling depots.

This is not a small operation by any standards.

The council says that it has consulted all those affected. But this is not just a local matter. This is a major development that affects us all.

It is the first step in the establishment of a waste disposal facility in the most beautiful countryside that is the northern breathing space of the city of Hereford. It is in the middle of three important villages and rightly concerns all of us who live and work in them with our children and dependants. It is next to a prestigious Business Park that the council has been keen to promote.

It threatens a very dangerous increase in the number of lorries taking in and out so vast a quantity of material before and after treatment on the A49 that is sadly well known for its accidents. The process of windrow composting is not without its disadvantages - smell, bioaerosols (biological particles suspended in air which have the potential to cause respiratory complaints if inhaled), dust and litter.

The proposer claims that distance from the plant removes the danger and has sought to demonstrate that no household is at risk. That is really little comfort to the communities around the proposed plant. Distance does not remove fear, nor does it mitigate the environmental damage to the landscape and the countryside.

We know that waste must be recycled and that councils and communities have targets to reach. Is this really the only conceivable site in the region for this development? How carefully have other possibilities been investigated?

I am advised that letters will be received by the planning department until the end of August even though the consultation period has ended and that all will be considered. That information has not been published and I hope that anyone concerned will make known their reservations.

MICHAEL SMITH, Wellington, Hereford.