I\u2019m representing ACT, but hopefully speaking\non behalf of all those who are concerned about this Gas-fired Power Plant\nproposal. Here is an example of what some\nACT members have said:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
\u201cThe council\u2019s unanimous and brave decision to declare a Climate Emergency inspired a huge number of us to act together to help the council fulfil their pledge of Net Zero Emissions for Teignbridge by 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Please give us, and the country, a lead to\nshow that you are serious about doing this\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n
I\u2019m sure that most of you appreciate why we\nhave a Climate Emergency, rather than just a challenge. If you don\u2019t, I urge you to come and talk to ACT.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Although your\nClimate Emergency declaration and the community\u2019s concerns are serious enough\nreasons to reject this application, they are only indirectly referenced in\ncurrent legally binding planning policies, they may not convince a planning\ninspector when it goes to appeal. So,\nhere are the reasons for objecting under current planning policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Right from the\noutset we formally asked for simple facts in relation to what the need is and\nwhat the resulting impact would be of this development. The reason we\nasked is exactly because of the statement in the report from the\nofficer\/developer (#3.28) \u201cThe principle of the proposed\ndevelopment is finely balanced\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Neither the\nplanning officer nor you as the Planning Committee could possibly make a\ndetermination without this basic information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Despite all\nour efforts we find that the updated report has actually embellished the misinformed\nevidence from the first report. Some of this \u2018evidence\u2019 gives half the\nstory, some skews the facts and quite a few are simply inaccurate. This\npseudo-evidence is then used to justify the development as being needed and\ncomplying with the CCC statements, the NPPF and LP policies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
We have\ndocumented the main shortcomings of this quite lengthy, but not so informative,\nplanning report. I don\u2019t have the time\nto go through it in any detail, but I would like to highlight the key points.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
If this is\nplant is intended to meet \u2018peaking\u2019 electricity demands as implied by the\ndeveloper, it should only operate at the times indicated by WPD\u2019s most recent\ntender for peaking plant in this area. \nThis equates to ~5% of the time, yet the applicant intends to operate it\nfor ~50% of the time with no limits to stop that going to 80-90%.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under these intended\noperating periods, the CO2 emissions from this one relatively small plant would\nadd nearly 5,000 Tonnes of CO2 every\nyear. These are significant additional\nemissions which run contrary to S7 & EN3 requirement for new development to\nreduce CO2 emissions. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Even worse, the\ndeclared operating period directly blocks additional renewable generation\nwhether local or elsewhere. Electricity\ntakes the route of least resistance and favours existing generation. The irony of course is that there are technologically\nexisting and affordable Low-Carbon alternatives to deal with Peaking demand.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Instead we\nwould argue that unless the developer can provide actual evidence which\nsupports their claims of adherence to the NPPF, LP and previous inspectors\u2019\nrulings to deliver Peaking requirements in the area (i.e. very restricted\noperating periods), this application should be rejected.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Finally, we\nare also concerned that there is no planning condition set which makes sure\nthat the EA analysis and ultimately permission for operating, includes the\nincreased risk from Nitrogen Oxides on those using the very close walking\/cycling\npath which is in the line of the prevailing wind from the plant chimney. The EA calculations submitted by the developer\nand accepted by the planning officer do not include the full context of where\nthis plant is to be located, which is why it \u2018marginally\u2019 passes EA\ncalculations. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
I\u2019m representing ACT, but hopefully speaking on behalf of all those who are concerned about this Gas-fired Power Plant proposal. Here is an example of what some ACT members have said: \u201cThe council\u2019s unanimous and brave decision to declare a Climate Emergency inspired a huge number of us to act together to help the council […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-1431","page","type-page","status-publish","hentry"],"yoast_head":"\n