Wiltshire Council wrote to Hills asking for further clarification on:
- The railway bridge (apparently the consent is only to 2018);
- Tonnage inconsistencies (the Planning and Transport statements produced by Hills contain different figures); and
- Sustainable transportation of waste (existing arguments by Hills were unconvincing and in one report suggested that Purton site is unsustainable and that, as argued by Purton residents all along, the original application was for green waste arising in and around Swindon only).
Further requirements relating to the application were also requested on the impacts on Cricklade, the highway network, and the potential for cumulative effects on air quality, human health and amenity.
Wiltshire Council stated that since there was a significant amount of information that was missing from the application, the application would likely be refused unless the above concerns were adequately addressed.
The applicant has subsequently submitted revised documents and notes:
The railway bridge
The applicant claims to have negotiated an extension to the agreement with Network Rail to retain the bridge until 2038. That is well beyond anything ever mentioned at the time of the original permission. The applicant has broken the covenant with the people of Purton. The village and the environment simply cannot keep absorbing every impact from the applicant. It is against the principles of The Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) (England and Wales) Regulations 2011. This has been planning by stealth and if the full scope of the applicant’s intentions had been revealed at the time an environmental impact assessment would have been needed and, in all probability, would have failed.
Tonnage inconsistencies
These have been corrected and simply serve to demonstrate the shoddy nature of the original application which does not auger well for future probity.
Sustainable transportation of waste
The revised arguments of the applicant that transportation is of minor scale is completely misleading since the totality of the impact still has not been determined. No air quality, human health impact or amenity assessments have been made. The conclusion by Hills that this application makes no unacceptable impact on Cricklade and the immediate surrounding highway network is pure speculation since the assertions are devoid of any quantitative data. The applicant simply re-asserts that the transportation of waste is “sustainable” yet provides no data that this is the case.
This application deserves to be dismissed. If you agree please write again (there were many objections the first time around) confirming your original objections based on your continuing concerns.
This can be done, citing Application No. 15/00401/WCM (Parkgate Farm Waste Management facility) by email: developmentmanagement@wiltshire.gov.uk or by using the on-line facility: http://tinyurl.com/nytve93
The closing date for comments is tomorrow (8 April)
