Please ensure that this submission is seen by both the Planning authorities and the EA.

I object to this proposal by Amey Cespa on the grounds of safety. The proposal, and the expressed intentions of the company, do not specify adequate monitoring and response to process problems, which would compromise the safety of the plant’s operation in this increasingly populous area.

Specifically, the proposals do not specify immediate response to combustion and emission control problems to prevent the release of harmful emissions (by contrast with the operating practice of Suez, running a similar plant in Suffolk). When challenged in a public meeting on 29 January, the company’s technical director asserted that they would (merely) respond to direction by the Environment Agency; which would leave extended periods of unresolved harmful emissions.

This unacceptable approach to emissions is consistent with the company’s stated intentions towards its ongoing emission of unpleasant odours from its composting plant in the adjacent site. It only improved them, to some extent, when prosecuted by the EA, and fined. Odour release continues to cause nuisance in the surrounding villages, complaints continue, but the company intends to take no new action to contain these emissions.

It seems that if the company were permitted to proceed, the Environment Agency would need to maintain close scrutiny and control of its operation. In that event also, the planning and permitting authorities might at least require that the present release of odour is eliminated, as a condition of that permitting. I would urge these authorities to do so.

John Buckley

Resident of Landbeach

6 February 2018

The village of Landbeach lies to the north of Cambridge, between the city and the fens.


Upcoming events