Articles by admin

We have obtained a copy of the file for planning permission 61530/02. Bolton Council has lost their copy and appear to have been unable to obtain a copy. We have therefore decided to make the documents publically available.

Links to the documents will be posted on this site. Links to several initial key documents are given below.

 We mainain that 61530/02  is not a ROMP permission, and therefore the Earthline case is not relevant. The end date is a valid condition.

 In any event extraction in the quarry is complete and no evidence has been provided otherwise to support extending the ROMP permission end date.

61530/02 Documents

Applicants supporting statement
 
http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/61530-02-supporting-statement.pdf
 
Officers report (decision deferred)
 
http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/61530-02-officers-report1.pdf
 
Officers report (final)
 
http://www.bheag.co.uk/http://www.bheag.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/61530-02-officers-report2.pdf

A new group has been formed in Bolton, RAGE, Rise Against Greenbelt Exploitation.

In the Greenbelt there is a presumption against development. Whilst the initial focus of the group is the development of a new house, in the West Pennine Moors Greenbelt, the omission of the West Pennine Moors in the proposed Bolton Core Strategy has not gone unnoticed. In particular the proposal to remove Rivington and Winter Hill as a key place for toursim and turn the location into probably the largest waste processing and land fill site in Greater Manchester.

Blackrod and Horwich Environmental Action Group have been asking Bolton Council seven very simple questions for nearly six months. Depite being escalated to Sean Harriss the Chief Executive since the beginning of the year, Bolton Council have refused to answer these questions.

One such question was that in October 2009, Bolton Council stated that there was an agreed restoration plan for Pilkington Quarry. The Environment Agency stated they were not aware of this plan ( despite the fact they should have been consulted). The council have now ammended their position stating “I am sure there is one” but have so far failed to provide any evidence.

In fact the only document we can find, would allow the importation of approximately six million tonnes of Greater Manchester Waste to be imported in to Horwich Moor. The document says it is approved and yet the Environment Agency objected to it in the strongest manner. We have asked for this “error” to be corrected but as yet the council have failed to do so.

During the 2008/9 Pilkington Quarry planning application it was necessary for the group to send a legal letter to the Council, to ensure they upheld their legal obligations. A significant amount of new evidence has been identified since this letter was written. Once again the council are showing total disregard for their own rule book and democracy, by refusing to answer our questions. The motif is unclear.

Rise Against Greenbelt Exploitation

Stage two of the Greater Manchester Waste Disposal consultation has clearly identified two sites at Rivington as a potential location for Greater Manchester’s waste.(In a previous document one of these sites was identified as particularly important to the strategy)

The two sites are Montcliffe Quarry and Pilkington Quarry. Both have agreed restoration plans – Montcliffe to become a place for leisure by 2012.    Pilkington quarry should  have been restored by 2008, in accordance with the 1950 and 1968,1997 and 2002 planning permissions, as stone extraction was completed several years ago.

You would think that Rivington was safe ?

Pilkington Quarry has been subject to spotlight over the last twelve months. As green waste has been allowed to be imported into the quarry (even though the planning permission allows only inert waste). This has been allowed to happen even though planning permission has expired. In 2009 this waste was found to have contaminated the surface water. There is additional contaminated land within the quarry. A new planning permission is currently seeking to extend the life of the quarry until 2042 (see 83299/09)

Montcliffe quarry is also subject to discussions by Bolton Council for use in waste disposal.

Both sites are in the Green Belt. Both sites have agreed restoration timescales. Bolton’s current UDP currently identifies the West Pennine Moors (including Rivington) as particularly important to tourism. This is about to change.

Bolton’s new Core Strategy, currently in the consultation phase until 06 March 2010, specifically excludes the West Pennine Moors as being important to tourism, removing some of the safeguard against inappropriate development in one of the most beautiful areas in our locality.

Please make your thoughts known to your local ward councillors, Bolton Council and the press.

Please make sure that anyone who loves this area, vists or lives in this area because of the landscape and the greenbelt knows about the situation.

Please see these links :-

http://www.gmwastedpd.co.uk/ 

A new planning application has been made to extend the current operation until 2042

Please see the new application  update, 83299/09  (click “home”)

http://www.planning.bolton.gov.uk/DCOnlineV2/AcolNetCGI.dcgov?ACTION=UNWRAP&RIPNAME=Root.PgeResultDetail&TheSystemkey=76767

We are currently considering our position

We are concerned about the above application, as we believe it contains a great deal of misleading information, which may contribute to a favorable bias, both to the planning committee and also the supporting statements.

1.    The plant is described as a biomass CHP plant ( CHP–combined heat and power ) …..these plants can be 70-90% efficient

The primary source of fuel is waste wood, not wood from agricultural waste or forestry

There is no proposal to use the thermal energy which is c 75% of the total energy output- sufficient to heat nearly 30,000 homes, as such it is not a CHP plant, this also makes it c 20% efficient

In the absence of any process detail, the report fails to mention how this thermal energy will be dissipated eg cooling tower with resultant steam cloud etc etc

2        Quantity of Wood required , and the impact on transport and noise

The QC indicates that the plant will use 85,000 tonnes per annum. However other areas of the report suggest the volume will be 150,000 tonnes. The latter figure is more likely.

It states that the wood may derive from Armstrong’s site, who are processing 120,000 tonnes of timber and 70,000 tonnes of green wood waste per annum. Figures from the environment agency show Armstrong’s as receiving only 76,000 tonnes of total waste in the last year, and an average of 71,000 tonnes per annum over the last three years. Not all of this quantity is wood.

It is therefore probable that the number of deliveries would need to be increased over 100%

The supporting statement further mentions on two occasions that the total quantity of wood may not originate form Armstrong’s, ie there would be increased deliveries of 150,000 tonnes per annum – a 200% increase.  Irrespective of vehicles leaving with processed waste or empty.

This is totally inconsistent with the supporting transport  and noise statement, which even suggest transport will decrease.

3        Emissions

Environmental Risk Assessment (EPR-H1 part 2) and the Waste Incineration Directive (WID) require the emissions originating from a proposed development to be defined and in what quantities. The study has just used the limits defined in the WID, even though the WID states that this should not be done.

For a new installations estimates of releases are required. where possible, estimates of releases should be backed up by information from pilot trials or similar operations. This has not been done.

The assessment should consider the Meteorology and local topography i.e.

The wind speed and direction data used is from south Manchester so it is not relevant to this location.

Rainfall levels have not been considered even though this would be a significant route for pollutants to enter the SSSI.

Temperature                – no data provided

In a valley               – not mentioned

EPR-H1 part 2 defines lower levels than specified in the report to protect vegetation and ecosystems in an SSSI.  The adjacent Red Moss is an SSSI

^• NO_x value 30 µg/M³        not 40 µg/M³

 SO₂  value 20 µg/M³                       not  125 µg/M³

In addition the background pollutant levels are measure in Wigan and Manchester, rather than Horwich / Blackrod / Bolton.  No account is made of the recent planning approval on the Markland Farm Biomass plant.

The statement stresses that an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is not required, but the EIA guidance document suggests quite the opposite. Especially as the current application does not clearly identify the likely emissions and in what quantities they can de expected.

It is clear that there a number of significant errors / omissions / contradicting statements within the application. In the absence of clarification on these points the current application cannot be acceptable

Please see the Planning application link on the right hand side of thi s page