Eco-plant defeat could cost Rotherham Council £40,000: VOTE

ROTHERHAM ratepayers face footing a bill for costs of up to £40,000 after permission for a pioneering power plant was granted on appeal.

 The borough council’s planning board doused applicant Bioflame’s hopes for the eco-friendly wood burner last April.

 Members listened to residents’ fears over traffic and access during a heated meeting at the Town Hall—and went against council officers’ recommendations.

 Campaigners celebrated a “round one victory”, but Bioflame managing director Victor Buchanan announced his intention to appeal even before leaving the meeting.

 Planning Inspectorate representatives visited the Dog Kennel Hill site—on the border between Kiveton and South Anston—in November, deciding that the reasons for RMBC rejecting the plan were “not precise, specific or relevant.”

Delighted Mr Buchanan said that there was a strong temptation to say “I told you so” this week.

 He added: “We knew from a planning point of view that the application was a shoe-in. We know the system backwards, and my guys in planning are the best in the country.

 “It’s a great shame that the planning process needed to get confrontational, because the only loser here is the council taxpayer.

 “I said at the planning meeting that the inspectorate would find in our favour. It’s been a waste of time and money.”

 Mr Buchanan said the cost of the appeal would likely be between £20,000 and £40,000.

 “This site at Kiveton is perfect,” he added. “But we wanted to start work on this seven or eight months ago.

 “We understand that the residents had concerns about traffic, and if they still have these concerns then they should be lobbying local politicians about the real problems there, not trying to stop regenerative development.”

 Cllr Iain StJohn, Labour member for Anston and Woodsetts, who spoke out against the plan went it went before planners, said that he and many others were “pretty gutted” by the Inspectorate’s decision.

 “The planning board was given professional advice by RMBC officers that the original application should be allowed,” he added.

 What do you think of the decision to grant permssion for the plant in Dinnington? Click here to e-mail your views.

 “The elected members however, listened to the views of local people, and me as one of their councillors, and took the decision to turn the application down. I believe their decision was correct.

“I strongly support the concept of turning waste materials into both heat and power. But the chosen site is quite unacceptable, and flies in the face of common sense.”

 Fellow ward councillor and planning board member Cllr Jo Burton said: “I had been looking for information about the appeal and about any proposed visit but it has been eerily quiet.

 “I feel very strongly to support the objections of local people which were based on existing facts and not ‘possible’ scenarios.”

 The Planning Inspectorate report said: “The council refused planning permission for highway reasons against the advice of both its transport unit and the Highways Agency.

 “In this respect, significant weight was attached to the objections from the residents relating to the sub-standard nature of the access, the proximity of the railway crossing, the narrow and restricted highways in the vicinity and the excessive volumes of traffic accessing the site.

 “It was considered, therefore, that any additional traffic using the access would unacceptably exacerbate an already unsatisfactory situation, without any means to address the future adverse effect.

 “In this regard, no policy exists in the development plan that exactly covers this scenario.”

 A council spokeswoman said: “The council has been notified of the inspector’s decision and the matter will be reported to the planning board for consideration.”

 “The inspector has made an award of costs against the council.

 “In the event that the inspector's decision on costs is not challenged it will ultimately thereafter be a matter for the appellant to pursue any claim.

 “If and when they do, the council will then further consider the details of any claim.”