A waste management company's plans to build a medical waste incinerator in a Huntingdonshire village have been refused following a marginal vote.
Envar Composting Ltd's planning application to build a healthcare waste energy recovery facility on Somersham Road in Woodhurst, near St Ives, was rejected at a Cambridgeshire County Council planning meeting on April 19.
The plans for an incinerator would have led to the construction of a 26 metre-high chimney stack and allowed for clinical waste, transported to the site from local hospitals, to be incinerated.
Despite being recommended by officers to the planning committee that planning permission be granted, five of the nine councillors voted to refuse the application.
Cllr David Connor put forward a proposal to reject the application, seconded by Cllr Mandy Smith, due to the adverse impact the scale of the chimney would have on the landscape, harming the visual amenity of nearby businesses and residents.
Additionally, the perceived health and well-being risks an incinerator would create was deemed to outweigh the benefits of allowing the co-location of the incinerator with existing waste streams at the site already.
READ MORE: Proposed plans to build medical waste incinerator
Reaction
Several members of the campaign group People Opposing Woodhurst Incinerator (POWI) gathered outside New Shire Hall in Alconbury Weald to present a petition in protest.
The petition had accumulated 4,237 signatures, and members spoke passionately at the meeting before erupting in rapturous applause at the final verdict.
POWI member, Lorna Watkins, said: "The decision represents a huge win for democracy and people power.
"With limited resources, many sleepless nights and a lot of grit and determination, our communities and POWI came together to say a resounding 'no' to the plan.
"This was never about the county's need for another hazardous waste incinerator; it was always about Envar's need. It was a massive challenge for people to grapple with such technically complex issues, but in the end, common sense prevailed."
READ MORE: 'We do not want this' - action group step up fight against incinerator
Another POWI member, Ted Harvey, said: "It was a long meeting with lots of complex issues under discussion, but a few councillors took the bull by the horns and produced what we think is the right if close-run decision.
"We fully expect Envar to appeal and are already looking at possible ways forward.
"There is still potentially a long way to go, but even a delay is a positive result as the tide is clearly turning against incinerators in all their forms."
A spokesperson for Envar said: "Envar would like to thank everyone for their time at the committee meeting yesterday and commend the planning officers on their comprehensive and factual report.
"We shall now be taking some time to review our options."
What was said at the meeting?
During the nearly seven-hour hearing, which at times was emotionally charged, several impassioned members of the public got a chance to voice their concerns.
Increased traffic and highway dangers, noise levels, impact on health and air quality and whether the incinerator is needed were some of the many points demonstrated by nearby residents, fruit and chicken farmers, parents at Silk Farm Nursery and the Raptor Foundation.
Elizabeth Blows, CEO of the Raptor Foundation, a charity committed to the conservation of birds, said she was "gutted" by the plans and was close to tears when speaking.
"All I can see is the good we've done at the Raptor Foundation is not going to be upheld by the bad that is going to be done by Envar."
"I'm so upset by this."
READ MORE: Call for medical waste incinerator proposal to be "abandoned"
Somersham ward councillor, Steve Criswell, highlighted that reports couldn't rule out harmful emissions entirely and said: "Where there is uncertainty, there is anxiety, and there is a huge amount of anxiety locally at the moment."
The officer's report, however, noted the absence of objections from relevant statutory bodies and that advice from the air quality consultants was that the proposed development would not have an adverse effect on air quality.
With councillors at times at loggerheads with one another, Cllr Sebastian Kindersley, although sympathetic to residents' fears, disputed the grounds of refusal.
"We're being completely and totally illogical, and we're making fools of ourselves if we think any of this is going to last for more than four seconds in front of a planning inspector, he said.
However, Cllr Keith Prentice argued that the council should not be frightened to go to the inspectorate and that as a council, "we have to listen to what people have said and support them."
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here