Planning Documents

droneimage.jpg

The Hampshire County Council planning website includes thousands of pages of documents from Veolia as part of their planning application, hundreds of consultation responses, objections from District and Borough Councils, Town and Parish Councils, and over 5,500 objections from residents, businesses and all those who care about the environment and the rural Wey Valley.

 

We are not aware of any supporters of this proposal other than Veolia themselves.

You can find elsewhere on our site a brief overview of the impact of the proposed incinerator, the latest updates on the process, and you can register your objection with HCC.

 

Below are collected the most relevant documents in response to Veolia's planning application, with extracts of comments made. As HCC's planning website does not allow directly linking to documents, copies are stored on this website.

HCC Departments
HCC Landscape
  • Holding Objection dated 3rd November 2020 [PDF]. The objection states that "there are sections of the
    Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment which appear to underestimate the effects of the development as it is currently proposed, however, it is noted that the assessment prepared by the applicant does not find any beneficial visual effects of the proposed development.". 
     It concludes "the layout, form and appearance of the development proposals as currently proposed are not appropriate to the scale and landscape setting of the site."

  • Objection dated 21st February 2021 [PDF]. This objection was not published on HCC's website and was only published after a Freedom of Information request made by No Wey Incinerator and associated news publicity, including on BBC TV, see here. The objection states that "the proposed development on this site, in terms of its scale, massing and character as currently shown, causes an unacceptable adverse visual impact and does not enhance the distinctive character of the Hampshire landscape within which it sits, and is therefore considered to be contrary to Policy 13 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Local Plan".

  • HCC consultants Indigo Landscape Architects reviewed the application [PDF] and noted that Veolia's landscape impact assessment underplayed a number of issues, concluding that "the Assessment does not provide a complete analysis, and is not therefore adequate. My position would be to recommend that the conclusions of the Assessment are not accepted" and that "I take the view that the scale of the proposal is incongruous with the small scale characteristics of the Wey Valley in which it sits and that the proposed mitigation fails to mitigate the predicted Landscape and Visual effects".

HCC Waste Planning
  • Holding Objection dated August 2020 [PDF], stating "a fourth large-scale facility such as that proposed is likely to draw waste from a wider area and may not be able to operate solely on residual waste. The proposed development could therefore impact the provision of recycling facilities and drive waste down the waste hierarchy."

  • HCC has so far failed to provide subsequent correspondence between the Strategic Planning department and the Waste Planning department requested under the Freedom of Information Act that would update this Holding Objection.

South East Waste Planning Advisory Group (of which HCC is a member)

  • The report "Residual Non-Hazardous Waste Treatment Capacity in the South East" [PDF], completed for SEWPAG by Cool Planet Resources in May 2021, notes that "once [incinerator] capacity is operational it is not commercially possible to reduce inputs to enable waste to be managed by recycling and other methods further up the waste hierarchy" and concludes with the concern that"there is a risk that if any of the ‘other recovery’ capacity in the pipeline (i.e. consented and applications pending) [which includes Alton] came on stream then it might not be possible to achieve [the national target of] 65% recycling of LACW and C&I waste".

  • Minutes of SEWPAG meetings obtained under Freedom of Information requests illustrate the concerns of waste planning professionals in the region, including that "large EfW facilities end up having very competitive gate prices and therefore new recycling facilities are put off as they won’t be able to compete" and that "we do not want to be locking ourselves into dealing with residual waste but rather reducing residual waste".

Consultees
CPRE - The Countryside Charity
  • Objection [PDF] - dated 12th August 2020 - where CPRE recognised that the site "is located within fine countryside in the Wey Valley" and that the land to the north of the A31 in the vicinity of the site has "demonstrable attributes in terms of both landscape character and physical distinctiveness, and public experience of the landscape, such that it constitutes a Valued Landscape", which therefore accords it special protection. Furthermore "it is simply not possible to disguise the massive impact of such a huge building on the landscape. The living walls [...] are themselves very large structures alien to the landscape, and do not ameliorate the impact of the 80 metre twin stacks which have their own impact on landscape character and, as the LVIA acknowledges, will break the skyline in many views". CPRE's analysis concludes that "Accordingly, and contrary to HM&WP Policy 13 (High-quality design of minerals and waste development), and Policy 4 (Protection of the designated landscape), this proposal would cause unacceptable adverse visual impact and would not maintain or enhance the distinctive character of the landscape. Nor would it comply with Policy 10 of the HM&WP (Protecting public health, safety and amenity) as the proposed development would cause unacceptable visual impact in the area.". It continues"to permit the proposed ERF plant in what is effectively open countryside would be contrary to Policy 5 of the HM&WP (Protection of the countryside)", and"nor, for the same reason, would it comply with Policy 29 of the HM&WP (Locations and sites for waste management) as the scale of the proposed plant would not be compatible with the setting of the Site, which accordingly cannot be considered "suitable"".

  • Further Objection [PDF] stating that"CPRE Hampshire continues to maintain that the tract of land described in Appendix A to CPRE Hampshire's original Response is an NPPF Valued Landscape" and that "CPRE Hampshire continues to consider that this proposal is not "the right development, in the right place, at the right time". The need for and benefits of the Proposed Development do not outweigh the significant adverse landscape and visual amenity effects. It should be refused."

Environment Agency
  • Responded with regard to planning issues on 14th August 2020, noting that "the proposed installation is located remotely from potential users of new thermal power plants" and "operators should explain at planning application stage [...] why they have selected a site which is located remotely from potential heat users."

Hampshire Fire and Rescue Service
  • Noted in their response of 22nd July 2020 [PDF] that "should a serious unsuppressed fire occur on the premises, the water environment may become polluted with ‘fire water run-off’ that may include foam. The Service will liaise with the Environment Agency at any incident where they are in attendance and under certain circumstances, where there is a serious risk to the environment, a ‘controlled burn’ may take place. This of course could lead to the total loss of the building and its contents".

Heritage England
  • Responded on 10th June 2021 [PDF] stating that Historic England "has concerns regarding the application" due to the "harm to the [nearby] Grade II* listed farmhouse [Bonhams Farm] by eroding its historic rural setting", that Paragraph 194 of the National Planning Policy Framework "requires clear and convincing justification for any harm to a designated heritage asset", and that Policy 7 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan "requires these benefits to decisively out way the harm".

  • Responded again on 19th October 2021 [PDF] noting that the concerns in their previous letter "have not been addressed yet" by HCC.

South Downs National Park Authority
  • Objection [PDF] dated 14th August 2020 where the SDNPA note the negative effect upon characteristic views and visual amenity, negative effects upon the character of the setting of the National Park, "due to the excessive scale of the facility and chimney stacks and its prominence in the Wey Valley" and in conclusion that "SDNPA object to the planning application as the development proposal has failed to demonstrate that it would positively respond to the setting of the National Park's landscape character."

  • Further Objection [PDF] dated 15th February 2021 where the SDNPA continues to raise concerns about how "the scheme would be seen as a large incongruous feature within a landscape which visually contributes to the setting of the National Park" and that the proposed 'green wall' is "unlikely to satisfactorily mitigate the visual harm given the scale and form of the building".

Borough, District, Town and Parish Councils
  • ​Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council

    • Objection [PDF] - dated 16th October 2020​ as "the proposed development would have an adverse visual impact on the landscape from within Basingstoke and Deane District".

  • East Hampshire District Council

    • Objection [PDF]  - dated 21st August 2020, raising a "strong objection" due to the "impact on the character and appearance of the area", "impact on heritage assets", failure to accord with East Hampshire's Climate Strategy, lack of need, and other reasons.

    • Further Objection [PDF] dated 28th January 2021 including "The additional information received does not alter the Council’s assessment but appears to reinforce the significant visual effects that would result, both near and far" and that the Council "maintains its strong objection to the proposal".

  • Waverley Borough Council

    • Objection [PDF] dated 14th August 2020, for a number of reasons including "the CO2 emissions caused by burning waste is directly contrary to the Council’s aims for achieving carbon neutrality by 2030. [...] Burning waste to generate electricity is less efficient than burning coal", that "there is already excess incinerator capacity in the UK", and that Hampshire is falling short of Government recycling targets.

    • Further Objection [PDF] dated 22nd July 2021, for a number of reasons including that "a full appraisal should be undertaken to establish whether there are more appropriate sites for the proposed development that are also located in closer proximity to large heat consumers"; that "it is not clear where the waste to be processed at the facility will originate and whether this would be from outside the area, therefore redistributing harmful waste disposal impacts from other areas into the local area"; and that "the proposed recovery capacity for Hampshire between 2011 and 2020 exceeded requirements set out in Policy 27 of the Hampshire Minerals and Waste Plan. As such, the proposed facility is not required to meet policy requirements".

  • Alton Town Council

    • Objection [PDF] - dated 7th August 2020, stating "The proposal constitutes an unacceptable overdevelopment of the site where the form and mass of development is excessive for the site and insufficient regard is paid to the amenities and character of the area and its close proximity to the South Downs National Park (SDNP), and represents creeping industrial development in the open countryside"

    • And two Further Objections for similar reasons

  • Farnham Town Council

    • Objection [PDF] - dated 12th August 2020, strongly objecting due to the site, location, size, traffic impact, and lack of clarity on sources of waste to be burned.

    • Further Objection [PDF] dated 15th February 2021 maintaining a strong objection.

  • Beech Parish Council

    • Objection [PDF] - dated 22nd July 2020 "on the grounds of its unsuitable location".

  • Bentley Parish Council

    • Objection [PDF] dated 17th July 2020 on the grounds of visual impact, traffic, noise, and other factors, and that they "find the proposal completely unacceptable".

    • Further Objection [PDF] dated 11th February 2021 where they remain "strongly object to the proposal".

  • Binsted Parish Council

    • Objection and Further Objection [PDF] where "we speak for our parishoners and rate payers who will be neighbours to this monstrosity. We expect Hampshire County Council to be accountable to their residents and to dismiss this ridiculous proposal without delay."

  • Chawton Parish Council

    • Objection [PDF] dated 13th August 2020 as the application does not consider alternative sites, the substantial adverse impact on the character of the area, that the incinerator would damage the historic environment and built heritage, and a number of other reasons.

  • Crondall Parish CouncilObjection and Further Objection

  • Farringdon Parish CouncilObjection

  • Four Marks Parish CouncilObjection and Further Objection

  • Froyle Parish Council

    • Objection [PDF] dated 14th August 2020, on the grounds of the unsuitability of the site, the scale of the proposal, the lack of landscaping provided on the existing site which was a condition of planning permission in 2002, negative economic impact to rural businesses, lack of need, environmental and ecology impact. It also notes "The applicant states in the Planning Statement with reference to Policy 14 of the HMWP that “the applicant has been in discussion with the local Parish Council in relation to
      potential community benefit packages"
      . [...] Froyle Parish Council wishes to formally put on record that it has not been contacted by or been in discussion with the applicant regarding the provision of any local community packages with regard to this application."

    • Further Objection [PDF] dated 15th February 2021 reiterating that "the Applicants have not provided any additional information in their Regulation 25 submissions that changes our previous conclusion that the proposed ERF will have adverse impacts in terms of visual impact, need, sustainability, and environmental
      impact."

    • Further Objection dated 9th August 2021 reiterating previous points.​

  • Grayshott Parish CouncilObjection

  • Hawkley Parish CouncilObjection and Further Objection

  • Kingsley Parish CouncilObjection and two Further Objections

  • Long Sutton and Well Parish CouncilObjection 

  • Selborne Parish Council

    • Objection [PDF] dated 12th August 2020, stating that "that any public benefit of the proposal is outweighed by the significant harm to the landscape" and "that the proposed development is the wrong kind of development in the wrong place."

    • Further Objection [PDF] dated 29th January 2021 reiterating their strong objection, on multiple grounds including landscape (including noting that the applicant's photographs from various rights of way fail to show the potential impact of the development), transport (including that 12% of HGVs may be accessing the proposed site from "other routes", which does not provide reassurance they will not be using unsuitable roads), environment, and failure to fully consider alternative sites.

  • Shalden Parish CouncilObjection

  • South Warnborough Parish CouncilObjection and Further Objection

  • Upton Grey Parish CouncilObjection

  • Weston Patrick and Weston Corbett Parish CouncilObjection

  • Wield Parish CouncilObjection

  • Worldham Parish Council​

    • Objection [PDF] dated 5th August 2020 providing a detailed objection on a number of critera.

    • And three Further Objection

Members of Parliament
  • Damian Hinds MP, Member of Parliament for East Hampshire

    • Objection [PDF] of August 2020 due to the proposal contradicting the "waste hierarchy", as the government has assessed that "additional residual waste energy capacity above that already planned to
      2020 should not be needed if we achieve our recycling targets”
      ; to new provisions in the Environment Bill that will increase recycling and reduce residual waste; for landscape visual impact, and the lack of use of heat produced.

    • Further Objection [PDF] of February 2021, adding "It is hard to avoid the conclusion that, had this site not already been owned by the applicant, it would not have been proposed for an EfW facility. The proposed facility is wholly inappropriate, both in scale and in character, in relation to the Wey Valley
      location and its surrounding area"
      and quoting policy recommendations from the Committee for Climate Change regarding how incinerators need to be built with Carbon Capture and Storage if the UK is to meet the goal of Net Zero by 2050.

    • Further Objection [PDF] of November 2021, focussing on air quality issues and the WHO's new guidelines on air quality, which the incinerator would breach.

  • Jeremy Hunt MP, Member of Parliament for South West Surrey​

    • Objection [PDF]​ of July 2020 citing how the "scale of the building is completely out of keeping with its immediate environment being a countryside setting close to the National Park. I believe it is being located in the wrong place most particularly in light of the fact that it is going to be utilised for commercial waste".

    • Further Objection [PDF] of February 2021, adding the possibility of an incineration tax being imposed, and how "Veolia has refused to take any responsibility for ensuring the proposed incinerator
      does not burn recyclable waste"
      and is resisting the addition of a planning condition to ensure this. 

No Wey Incinerator
  • No Wey Incinerator's detailed expert assessment and Objection from the August 2020 public consultation [PDF]

  • No Wey Incinerator's detailed expert assessment and Objection from the February 2021 public consultation [PDF]

  • No Wey Incinerator's detailed expert assessment and Objection from the July 2021 public consultation [PDF]​

  • No Wey Incinerator's detailed expert assessment and Objection from the November 2021 public consultation [PDF]​

  • No Wey Incinerator's detailed expert assessment and response to the Environmental Permit consultation [PDF]

Get Involved to Protect the Wey Valley!