MORE than 200 objections have been raised against a £200 million waste incinerator plan for a colliery in North Yorkshire.

Proposals for the Southmoor Energy Centre at Kellingley Colliery, near Beal, will go before North Yorkshire County Council’s planning committee in the New Year.

The company behind the scheme, Peel Environmental, said the project would create up to 375 construction jobs and 38 permanent posts once it starts operating, as well as providing low-cost energy for the area and cutting the colliery’s running costs.

Opposition to the development ranges from concerns over transport, noise, air quality, odour and the effect on the landscape to whether the incinerator is needed.

There are claims the Selby area already has enough industrial sites and pollution.

Peel’s proposals will be discussed when the county council’s planning committee meets tomorrow, with councillors asked to agree to a site visit ahead of determining the application.

In a written report, planning official Sophie Gooch said: “Particular concerns are raised in an objection from Selby District Council’s environmental health officer relating to the effects of noise and dust on adjacent residential properties on Turver’s Lane.

“The applicant has proposed some mitigation measures. The environmental health officer also raises concerns about emissions and the cumulative effect of this development in combination with existing developments affecting air quality in the Selby district.”

Her report said neither the Highways Agency nor the county’s council’s landscape officials opposed the scheme.

The incinerator would be capable of burning up to 280,000 tonnes of waste a year, much of it transported by rail, and would be a 24-hour operation, with existing colliery buildings and equipment moved elsewhere on the site to make room for Southmoor.

Peel Environmental, the firm behind the scheme, is also looking to build a green energy plant at the North Selby Mine site near York.

It initially won planning approval in April before learning the scheme must be debated for a second time by City of York Council because of an error in the information the authority’s planning officials gave councillors.