Two communities – one cause
According to the BBC, yesterday’s fire was the result of arson. The report seems to suggest that arsonist was inside the ware house before setting the plastic on fire
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-11151874
The Chorley People adds to the speculation by suggesting multiple “offenders”
Julie Hilling MP has expressed concerns about the recent fires and ongoing issues in the area and will be meeting the Environment Agency today.
Residents in the Horwich area are once again subject to a significant fire at the Armstrong’s Recycling plant, on Chorley New Road. This time, residents have been warned that the fumes, which could also be smelt in Blackrod, may be toxic – and to keep doors an windows shut.
This is the third fire at local recycling plants in as many weeks, and the second at the Chorley New Road Site in the same period. The plant has also reeked havoc in previous years – with many residents still fighting damage claims.
We have been contacted by a large number of people asking for help, regarding the ongoing problems. It has been suggested that a new group could be formed, which can work alongside Blackrod and Horwich Environmental Action Group in trying to resolve the issues. Anyone interested in attending the first meeting should contact BHEAG@HOTMAIL.COM
The battle with the quarries continues.
Once again, concerns about the proposals for the massive Blue NG plant in Blackrod have been voiced.
The message is clear “ENOUGH IS ENOUGH”
The European rape seed crop, the world’s biggest, has suffered a blow, with expectations of a 7.8% fall in the crop. Canada – the world’s second biggest producer has also suffered a decline which is expected to cut exports in the region of 20%. The UK however has a forecast surplus of approx 300,000-350,000 tonnes, which when converted to oil - enough to supply a Biomass plants the size of the proposed Blue NG plant in Blackrod, although this surplus will be exported as demand is being stimulated by Germany, which has changed the rules allowing only vegetable oil from sustainable sources to be used in biodiesel plants – in-line with European law.
The madness has begun, with European Palm oil demand expected to rise 4.4%. The law of economics will put the cheapest oil into the European food Market. It is folly when it is said that only oil from sustainable sources will be used, the increased demand will force someone, somewhere to use oil from non-sustainable sources – there is reason why vast swathes of rain forest and peat bogs are being converted to palm oil production – Demand. Environmental groups claim this destruction of our natural resources, in the name of green energy actually leads to increased global warming rather than the desired aim of a reduction. Too much Biofuels make us biofools.
One question freqently asked is if these plants exist in Europe, why not Blackrod – quite simply we missed the boat – the available supply is already being utilised and there is little prospect for boosting the EU rape-seed crop further.
Another question is why Blackrod for the proposed Blue NG plant. There does not appear to be a logical answer. It is reported that there are in the region of 12,500 gas reduction plants around the UK – mainly in industrial areas. Many are likely to have the advantage of being closer to potential users of the waste heat, closer to connections to the National Grid and closer to the proposed fuel source – all things essential for optimising the potential of an intelligent CHP biomass plant and making it greener. Most of these sites would not necessitate taking land out of agricultural production, reduction in the Greenbelt area else impacting an area of special landcsape characteristic.
Bolton councillors continue to act in the area’s best interests as “Trustees of the Greenbelt”, supported by groups like BHEAG and RAGE (Residents Against Greenbelt Exploitation)
A formal application by Blue NG has not yet been submited to Bolton Council
Bolton Council have responded to the twenty complaints regarding various issues at Pilkington Quarry. The complaints are being reviewed by the Local Government Ombudsman. The response does rather seem to miss the point, individuals having been ignored, groups being ignored, elected councillors and the public being mislead, democracy and obligations being ignored, we had to send a legal letter – at considerable cost – neither individuals nor the groups have had responses to legitimate questions that need to be answered as part of the lawful planning process Nothing seems to have changed and once again we are with solicitors. (The complaints were from four action groups not just BHEAG ).
The reponse seems to suggest that Bolton Council Planning Department fall outside the complaints process – how bizarre.
Following documentary evidence from the four local action groups, the Planning Committee once again took the appropriate action and deferred consideration of the applications until a later date. The decision was unanimous.
The planning meeting was interesting in the number of times that the Green Belt was discussed.
In particular the Conservative Councillors on the Planning Committee voiced an opinion to the effect that the Elected Councillors were “The trustees of the Green Belt”, commenting that 51% of the Bolton Area is Green Belt and warning of the “Creep” effect so evident in the area.
More locally Steve Pickup (Labour Ward councillor for Blackrod and Horwich) has voiced his opinion and support in protecting the local Green Belt and indeed the local labour MP – Julie Hilling has also voiced concerns. The Liberal dominated Horwich Council, and Liberal members of the planning committee have consistently acted to protect the local people from exploitation both in the Green Belt and in residential areas. The elected members of Blackrod Council have also been very supportive of our objectives, whilst un-elected members of the Green Party also offer support, particularly with respect to the possible Blue-NG development, in Blackrod.
We are not a politicaly afilliated group, we are people who care about the environment and the area where we live. This is one of the main reason people enter political office. These very people are however sometimes limited in the action they can take by the very position which they hold. We would like to take this opportunity to say “THANK YOU” and to offer our continued support.
Also a massive “THANK YOU” to all the people who have contributed to our legal advice over the last years, via Arcon Village Residents Group, Horwich Moor Residents Association, Blackrod and Horwich Environmental Action Group and Montcliffe Residents Association.
We would also particularly like to thank those individuals behind the scenes who spend so much of their time researching the various applications in great detail, and others providing information, advice or a listening ear within the community.
Faith in democracy went someway to being restored today.
Under these circumstances the planning authority should ask the Secretary of State to consider making a screening direction under regulation 4(8) stating whether EIA is required.
A more detailed summary can be found here.
Our case notes are currenly being considered by a solicitor and the Local Government Ombudsman, on behalf of four local action groups and residents. We have however sent a letter to the Planning Department and the Planning Commitee, which is reproduced below :
“It is our opinion that the decision to recommend application 83999/10 is supported by flawed legal advice and the decision process applied does not comply with UK and European law.
(i) The advice cites the Earthline case but fails to reference this part of the judgement “There was no evidence before us that any member of the public had been mislead by seeing condition 1 on the register. If in another case evidence of this kind was forthcoming a court would have to assess its significance and determine whether to grant a remedy to the land owner”
In fact, a number of residents have relied on planning searches when purchasing their properties and the Earthline judgement clearly states that they have rights as well as the landowner and therefore it is for a judge to determine the validity of the current end date.
The applicant has clearly stated that the reason for the application is an administrative error on the part of Bolton Council, therefore if approved any liability would be likely to fall to the council.
(ii) The advice states that our objection is based on the fact that Santime failed to appeal the ROMP date. The arguments raised in our objections, dated 4th May 2010, do not mention or rely on a failure to appeal.
(iii) The advice states “I am not aware of any provision relating to applications to vary conditions specific to mineral permissions. For the purposes of this advice I assume that the application to vary was made by virtue of s.73 of the TCPA 1990.” This assumption is pivotal to the case offered in the advice.
In fact Schedule 14 of the Environment Act 1995 Periodic Review of Mineral Planning Permissions should have been used.
Section 6 – Application to determine the conditions to which the mineral permissions relating to a mining site part (8) states that “conditions to which any mineral permission to which the application relates is to be subject are those specified in the application as being proposed in relation to that permission; and any such permission shall, from that time, have effect subject to those conditions.”.
Therefore permission 50252/97 is superseded by permission 61530/02, and they are not separate permissions as suggested in the legal advice.
(iv) In any event as the advice to Bolton Council states “Where two permissions exist the relevant test to determine whether the earlier permission remains extant is whether it is impossible to carry out the development pursuant to the earlier permission where the later permission has been implemented”.
On 1 September 2008 the applicant wrote to the Council, in the operational details (3.11.1) of application 80931/08 and stated “The restoration of the existing quarry, extension and the recycling operations (if approved) would be in accordance with the submitted restoration scheme. This is effectively a combination of the submitted scheme for 61530/02 planning permission (which has now been completed and has, therefore, lapsed)”. This was supported by a plan showing that extraction had either reached or passed the agreed boundaries.
As 61530/02 allowed extraction to the same limits as 50252/97 and the applicant has stated that it has been completed it would appear impossible to carry out the development of the earlier permission.
(v) It is our belief that in direct contravention of UK and European law this application has not been screened for whether an EIA is required. We have asked for this to be confirmed by the planning department but as yet they have refused to. We have had to base this on the fact no information has been provided by the applicant that would allow a screening process to be carried out (the councils check list confirms that no information was provided).
(vi) The conditions proposed have been copied from the 1997 application and are not suitable for a new planning approval e.g.;
Applicant to analyse the contents of the buttress
Develop a proposal for a low level restoration in the case that contaminants are confirmed in the buttress.
(vii) In accepting this application the council will be departing from the UDP (EM4) which states “
The Council will only permit development proposed in areas which may have been contaminated by previous industrial or other uses, provided:
(i) that appropriate investigations have been carried out by the applicant to establish the nature of the contamination and its potential impact on the development and the local environment; and
(ii) where necessary, what suitable measures will be taken to remove or treat the contamination or to protect the development from its effects.
The potential contamination has been known about since 2006, and the applicant has indicated that they would investigate the contents of the buttress. This has not been done and awarding planning approval with or without conditions will not guarantee the applicant will do what they are required in law to do.
This is a complex case for which insufficient information has been provided, and the planning process has not been rigorously applied.
The planning officer in their introduction is at pains to point out that the applicant is appealing the decision of 80931/08, which in essence includes the legal arguments of application 83999/10.
We urge you to refuse both application 83299/09 and 83999/10. The applicant will then have the opportunity to have his concerns considered by the Inspector this coming January.
If the council approve these applications it is clear that a flawed planning process has been applied and local residents will have suffered considerable injustice and it will invite a Judicial Review.
Yours sincerely
Blackrod and Horwich Environmental Action Group
Horwich Moor Residents Association
Montcliffe Residents Association
Arcon Village Residents Group
Please reply to BHEAG@Hotmail.com”
The third fire in as many years at Armstrong’s Environmental, Chorley New Road affected residents on Wednesday night.
The full story can be found here “Plant ‘a danger’ after huge blaze”
Two planning permissions by Armstrong’s, seeking extension of extraction operations at Pilkington Quarry until 2042, are to be heard by planning committee next Thursday. The applications are quite strange – as there is no stone left to extract. The officers report (see below) is equally strange – but then are so many things.
The two applications for Pilkington Quarry 83299/09 and 83999/10 are scheduled for 2pm, 19/08/2010, at Bolton Town Hall.
The recommendation to the Chief Planner is to refuse 83299/09 but to accept 83999/10. This is based on the legal advice on whether the applicant can challenge the end date. The four local groups have always accepted that this date can be challenged (although point 27 in the Council’s advice requires further consideration). Having made this assessment the Council is then required to consider due process for the application.
1 There is a legal requirement for an Environmental Impact screening , for all reviews of conditions. This has been pointed out by the GMGU but appears to have been ignored.
Planning permission may not be granted (or new mineral conditions determined) for a proposal for EIA development unless all of the information about the likely environmental effects of the proposal have been taken into consideration by the local planning authority
2 Irrespective of UK law, a recent ruling in the European Court requires an EIA be considered prior to committee.
3 The situation is also made more confusing by the fact that the quarry has not extracted stone for four years and is described as inactive on searches. The applicant wrote to Bolton Council on 1 September 2008 advising them that extraction was complete, and as such restoration should already have been completed. This contradicts point 27 of the legal advice
4 People have been mislead by the information available when purchasing houses etc. The Earthline case makes it very clear that in this scenario it is for the courts to decide what remedial action should take place. The applicant makes it very clear in this application that this is as result of an error by the council – and therefore any compensation is likely to be payable by the council.
Once again the elected members of the Planning Committee will be put in a very difficult position.
We have also been awarded Rule 6 status for the upcoming appeal, due to the evidence which we now possess. This will give us the same legal rights as Bolton Council, and Armstrong’s in the appeal.
Our twenty complaints are now being considered by the Ombudsman and we will be requesting that they widen their investigation
Recent Comments