Villages unite in fight against energy plant

Villages unite in fight against energy plant

Villages unite in fight against energy plant

First published in News York Press: Photograph of the Author by , mark.stead@thepress.co.uk

TWO villages near York have united in opposition to a £23.5 million green energy plant as a second decision-day draws closer.

Peel Environmental won planning permission for an anaerobic digestion facility to turn organic waste into power for about 3,500 homes on the North Selby Mine site near Deighton, Wheldrake and Escrick in April. But this was quashed in September following a legal challenge by campaigners and Samuel Smith’s Brewery.

An error in a report by council planners meant the City of York Council planning committee which approved the scheme was given incorrect information. Peel’s application must now be debated again, with a decision expected in February.

The company says 56 full-time and 50 seasonal jobs, and more than 250 construction roles, will be created and about £2 million will be injected annually into the local economy with carbon emissions also being cut.

The original application drew 362 objections, with local MPs Julian Sturdy and Nigel Adams opposing it, and 61 more have been lodged against the renewed application, including from Escrick and Wheldrake parish councils.

In a letter to planners, Wheldrake council said it recognised more environmentally-friendly ways of dealing with waste were needed, but Peel’s scheme was “inappropriate” in the green belt because of the buildings’ likely size and noise and light pollution. It said traffic problems would be caused by “significant movements of vehicles” taking waste and employees to the site.

Escrick council said: “Associated lighting and noise emissions will be of an industrial scale in a rural environment – the York green belt has historically performed an important function in preserving the setting of the city, and there have been no exceptional circumstances demonstrated in this application to overturn this principle.”

A consultants’ report commissioned by Tim Williams, of the North Selby Mine Action Group, claimed the methods used to assess “noise-related impact” from the site were flawed and did not reflect the effect it would have on nearby homes. The £17.5 million plant would be accompanied by a £6 million horticultural glasshouse.

Peel said the scheme would reduce Co2 emissions by about 20,000 tonnes a year, add only 1.5 per cent to the A19’s traffic, and have measures screening it from neighbouring villages and farms to prevent light pollution.

If approved, demolition work on former mine buildings would start by the end of March, construction of the anaerobic digestion facility would begin by autumn, and the plant would be operational in 2016.

Comments (13)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

10:23am Mon 6 Jan 14

myselby says...

just NIMBY's we need jobs and develoment or would they like a windfarm ?
just NIMBY's we need jobs and develoment or would they like a windfarm ? myselby
  • Score: 7

10:39am Mon 6 Jan 14

maybejustmaybe says...

They have already successfully stopped a windfarm. When the inevitable energy deficit arrives, remember who to turn off first.
They have already successfully stopped a windfarm. When the inevitable energy deficit arrives, remember who to turn off first. maybejustmaybe
  • Score: 10

11:14am Mon 6 Jan 14

MrChuckles says...

Good old Humphrey and his Sam Smiths legal team
Good old Humphrey and his Sam Smiths legal team MrChuckles
  • Score: 7

1:34pm Mon 6 Jan 14

myselby says...

one day Sam Smiths will stick to what they should do and not use ££££ to mess wih the planning system costing local people ££££
one day Sam Smiths will stick to what they should do and not use ££££ to mess wih the planning system costing local people ££££ myselby
  • Score: 1

4:45pm Mon 6 Jan 14

spottycow says...

NIMBYS . HOPE YOU LOT HAVE GOT THE GUTTS TO TELL LOCAL PEOPLE YOU CANT HAVE A JOB BECAUSE IT MIGHT SMELL ON A WINDY DAY .
NIMBYS . HOPE YOU LOT HAVE GOT THE GUTTS TO TELL LOCAL PEOPLE YOU CANT HAVE A JOB BECAUSE IT MIGHT SMELL ON A WINDY DAY . spottycow
  • Score: 1

5:08pm Mon 6 Jan 14

bloodaxe says...

Extraordinary. This site is one mile from both Escrick and Deighton and a mile and a half from Wheldrake. It is screened by trees and has excellent access. It was an acces site to the Selby Mine complex. It is not Green Belt and even if it were the brownfield site is undeniable. It won't impinge on the landscape or the atmosphere. As for smells, Naburn village seems quite popular despite having the dung farm down the road and this won't begin to compare. Sturdy is backing the objection because he is a knee-jerker with one eye on a few votes. Local councillors and residents are one-eyed reactionaries, the sort of people who insisted that the former mine site was called North Selby instead of Escrick in case it devalued their properties. The UK is years behind the rest of northern Europe in this technology, which is well proven. We are totally incapable of making any decision on any infrastructural project in case someone is offended, usually the well-heeled. I don't recall any major protests when Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge C were built to provide twenty percent of the nation's electricity, why ? Not enough loud-mouthed toffs living close by.
Extraordinary. This site is one mile from both Escrick and Deighton and a mile and a half from Wheldrake. It is screened by trees and has excellent access. It was an acces site to the Selby Mine complex. It is not Green Belt and even if it were the brownfield site is undeniable. It won't impinge on the landscape or the atmosphere. As for smells, Naburn village seems quite popular despite having the dung farm down the road and this won't begin to compare. Sturdy is backing the objection because he is a knee-jerker with one eye on a few votes. Local councillors and residents are one-eyed reactionaries, the sort of people who insisted that the former mine site was called North Selby instead of Escrick in case it devalued their properties. The UK is years behind the rest of northern Europe in this technology, which is well proven. We are totally incapable of making any decision on any infrastructural project in case someone is offended, usually the well-heeled. I don't recall any major protests when Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge C were built to provide twenty percent of the nation's electricity, why ? Not enough loud-mouthed toffs living close by. bloodaxe
  • Score: 4

5:10pm Mon 6 Jan 14

bloodaxe says...

Sorry, access, not acces.
Sorry, access, not acces. bloodaxe
  • Score: -2

10:16pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Alfredd-g says...

Let's just have a large out of town shopping centre instead. Much more fun at the end of the day and just what we need to brighten up the lives of these dull environmentalists and dreary locals.
Let's just have a large out of town shopping centre instead. Much more fun at the end of the day and just what we need to brighten up the lives of these dull environmentalists and dreary locals. Alfredd-g
  • Score: -2

11:12pm Mon 6 Jan 14

jumbojet says...

bloodaxe wrote:
Extraordinary. This site is one mile from both Escrick and Deighton and a mile and a half from Wheldrake. It is screened by trees and has excellent access. It was an acces site to the Selby Mine complex. It is not Green Belt and even if it were the brownfield site is undeniable. It won't impinge on the landscape or the atmosphere. As for smells, Naburn village seems quite popular despite having the dung farm down the road and this won't begin to compare. Sturdy is backing the objection because he is a knee-jerker with one eye on a few votes. Local councillors and residents are one-eyed reactionaries, the sort of people who insisted that the former mine site was called North Selby instead of Escrick in case it devalued their properties. The UK is years behind the rest of northern Europe in this technology, which is well proven. We are totally incapable of making any decision on any infrastructural project in case someone is offended, usually the well-heeled. I don't recall any major protests when Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge C were built to provide twenty percent of the nation's electricity, why ? Not enough loud-mouthed toffs living close by.
All correct, and more importantly, what has it got to do with Sam Smiths Brewery, they should stick to making beer, and leave the planning, or otherwise, to local people. Get the energy plant up and running, it will be a place of employment for the whole area and the impact re. noise/traffic and light pollution will be negligible, as it was previously as a coal mine.
[quote][p][bold]bloodaxe[/bold] wrote: Extraordinary. This site is one mile from both Escrick and Deighton and a mile and a half from Wheldrake. It is screened by trees and has excellent access. It was an acces site to the Selby Mine complex. It is not Green Belt and even if it were the brownfield site is undeniable. It won't impinge on the landscape or the atmosphere. As for smells, Naburn village seems quite popular despite having the dung farm down the road and this won't begin to compare. Sturdy is backing the objection because he is a knee-jerker with one eye on a few votes. Local councillors and residents are one-eyed reactionaries, the sort of people who insisted that the former mine site was called North Selby instead of Escrick in case it devalued their properties. The UK is years behind the rest of northern Europe in this technology, which is well proven. We are totally incapable of making any decision on any infrastructural project in case someone is offended, usually the well-heeled. I don't recall any major protests when Drax, Eggborough and Ferrybridge C were built to provide twenty percent of the nation's electricity, why ? Not enough loud-mouthed toffs living close by.[/p][/quote]All correct, and more importantly, what has it got to do with Sam Smiths Brewery, they should stick to making beer, and leave the planning, or otherwise, to local people. Get the energy plant up and running, it will be a place of employment for the whole area and the impact re. noise/traffic and light pollution will be negligible, as it was previously as a coal mine. jumbojet
  • Score: 3

11:13pm Mon 6 Jan 14

Badger2 says...

When the mine was built it had strict planning conditions about it being returned to agricultural use afterwards, instead of doing this UK Coal have spent years trying to profit from the land with the false excuse that it's now brownfield land, despite being in breach of the original plans by refusing to clear the site.

It may be hidden from the villages by trees, but the amount of light generated by it will still be much more than the total darkness you should have in the middle of nowhere. If the site was the other side of the council boundary in North Yorkshire, there's no way this would ever get approved, but City of York Council are ignorant of anything that happens outside of the ringroad and just see any open space as building land (or land to sell to developers that sits derelict for years).
When the mine was built it had strict planning conditions about it being returned to agricultural use afterwards, instead of doing this UK Coal have spent years trying to profit from the land with the false excuse that it's now brownfield land, despite being in breach of the original plans by refusing to clear the site. It may be hidden from the villages by trees, but the amount of light generated by it will still be much more than the total darkness you should have in the middle of nowhere. If the site was the other side of the council boundary in North Yorkshire, there's no way this would ever get approved, but City of York Council are ignorant of anything that happens outside of the ringroad and just see any open space as building land (or land to sell to developers that sits derelict for years). Badger2
  • Score: -3

2:13am Tue 7 Jan 14

Guthred says...

Badger2 wrote:
When the mine was built it had strict planning conditions about it being returned to agricultural use afterwards, instead of doing this UK Coal have spent years trying to profit from the land with the false excuse that it's now brownfield land, despite being in breach of the original plans by refusing to clear the site.

It may be hidden from the villages by trees, but the amount of light generated by it will still be much more than the total darkness you should have in the middle of nowhere. If the site was the other side of the council boundary in North Yorkshire, there's no way this would ever get approved, but City of York Council are ignorant of anything that happens outside of the ringroad and just see any open space as building land (or land to sell to developers that sits derelict for years).
,,,,and what on earth do you think "agricultural use" is exactly? Shire horses, steam engines and ploughs? Should we all applaud your brilliant definition of yesteryear? Agriculture is industry, just like any other primary sector. The fact that the land is being used to produce energy makes no difference whatsoever. Both North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire Councils have approved very similar agricultural waste management projects on what you might call "farmland" for years, so this one hardly sets a precedence. You Yorkie townie folkie wolkies know nowt of the doings of t' farming folk living on your doorstep.
[quote][p][bold]Badger2[/bold] wrote: When the mine was built it had strict planning conditions about it being returned to agricultural use afterwards, instead of doing this UK Coal have spent years trying to profit from the land with the false excuse that it's now brownfield land, despite being in breach of the original plans by refusing to clear the site. It may be hidden from the villages by trees, but the amount of light generated by it will still be much more than the total darkness you should have in the middle of nowhere. If the site was the other side of the council boundary in North Yorkshire, there's no way this would ever get approved, but City of York Council are ignorant of anything that happens outside of the ringroad and just see any open space as building land (or land to sell to developers that sits derelict for years).[/p][/quote],,,,and what on earth do you think "agricultural use" is exactly? Shire horses, steam engines and ploughs? Should we all applaud your brilliant definition of yesteryear? Agriculture is industry, just like any other primary sector. The fact that the land is being used to produce energy makes no difference whatsoever. Both North Yorkshire and East Yorkshire Councils have approved very similar agricultural waste management projects on what you might call "farmland" for years, so this one hardly sets a precedence. You Yorkie townie folkie wolkies know nowt of the doings of t' farming folk living on your doorstep. Guthred
  • Score: -1

5:08pm Tue 7 Jan 14

bloodaxe says...

Badger2 wrote:
When the mine was built it had strict planning conditions about it being returned to agricultural use afterwards, instead of doing this UK Coal have spent years trying to profit from the land with the false excuse that it's now brownfield land, despite being in breach of the original plans by refusing to clear the site.

It may be hidden from the villages by trees, but the amount of light generated by it will still be much more than the total darkness you should have in the middle of nowhere. If the site was the other side of the council boundary in North Yorkshire, there's no way this would ever get approved, but City of York Council are ignorant of anything that happens outside of the ringroad and just see any open space as building land (or land to sell to developers that sits derelict for years).
Middle of nowhere ? Good grief, it's a mile off the A19. As for agricultural use, what's the difference between this proposal and steaming piles of ordure plonked in the local fields at this time of year ? Mainly that this will have less stench. They've had these in some European countries for years. Anyway, who would benefit from the "agricultural use " I wonder. The nearest landowner perhaps, a landowner who receives subsidies based not on production but on the hectarage of land owned. Such people are subsidised to the tune of £400 per person in the entire EU per annum. This is power and light from waste. What could be greener ? You're not talking about a two million kilowatt power station or a car plant but a digester. Get a sense of proportion. Where exactly would you build this ?
[quote][p][bold]Badger2[/bold] wrote: When the mine was built it had strict planning conditions about it being returned to agricultural use afterwards, instead of doing this UK Coal have spent years trying to profit from the land with the false excuse that it's now brownfield land, despite being in breach of the original plans by refusing to clear the site. It may be hidden from the villages by trees, but the amount of light generated by it will still be much more than the total darkness you should have in the middle of nowhere. If the site was the other side of the council boundary in North Yorkshire, there's no way this would ever get approved, but City of York Council are ignorant of anything that happens outside of the ringroad and just see any open space as building land (or land to sell to developers that sits derelict for years).[/p][/quote]Middle of nowhere ? Good grief, it's a mile off the A19. As for agricultural use, what's the difference between this proposal and steaming piles of ordure plonked in the local fields at this time of year ? Mainly that this will have less stench. They've had these in some European countries for years. Anyway, who would benefit from the "agricultural use " I wonder. The nearest landowner perhaps, a landowner who receives subsidies based not on production but on the hectarage of land owned. Such people are subsidised to the tune of £400 per person in the entire EU per annum. This is power and light from waste. What could be greener ? You're not talking about a two million kilowatt power station or a car plant but a digester. Get a sense of proportion. Where exactly would you build this ? bloodaxe
  • Score: -1

8:11pm Tue 7 Jan 14

the butler says...

If the lighting is a cause for concern, surely that plan can be examined and modified to suit? another thing why would height be a problem?
as for noise, Is there any proof of a high decibel count at similar sites?
I recommend build it, test it out for proof of it's existence and validity of purpose then make the profit for the Shire... the Butler.
If the lighting is a cause for concern, surely that plan can be examined and modified to suit? another thing why would height be a problem? as for noise, Is there any proof of a high decibel count at similar sites? I recommend build it, test it out for proof of it's existence and validity of purpose then make the profit for the Shire... the Butler. the butler
  • Score: -2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree