Controversial Ramsbottom anaerobic digestion plant scheme could be decided next week

FLETCHER Bank Quarry in Shuttleworth

FLETCHER Bank Quarry in Shuttleworth

First published in News
Last updated

CONTROVERSIAL plans to build an anaerobic digestion plant in Ramsbottom will go before Bury Council’s planning committee on Tuesday.

In a planning report, the council said it was “minded to approve” the building of the site at Fletcher Bank Quarry, which would create electricity by using food by-products.

The plant would be built by Peel Environmental and run by Tamar Energy.

The plans have been met with sizeable local opposition, with 1,470 people formally objecting to the site, one person formally supporting them, and three petitions have been submitted.

The council has also received formal letters of opposition from Jake Berry, MP for Rossendale and Darwen, and Cllrs Ian Bevan and James Frith.

Peel was previously granted permission to increase the amount of landfill waste in the northern part of the quarry by Bury Council.

A report to the planning committee states that the proposed plant “could reasonably sit with and in amongst the ongoing operations”.

But opponents fear that the plant could create extra noise, more traffic and bad odours in Ramsbottom.

Peel says that the plant would provide a source of clean energy for the concrete products business run by Marshalls, and would deliver a £15 million boost to the local economy.

David Morrell, group head of sustainability at Marshalls, said: “Anaerobic digestion is a highly responsible way of dealing with organic waste — directing waste to the anaerobic digestion facility in Ramsbottom, rather than to landfill, would result in a significant displacement of approximately 30,000 tonnes per year of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.”

Peel and Marshalls also say the plant would support 175 full time jobs during the construction phase, and create 10 additional jobs once the facility has been built.

The plant has also received opposition from Bury Green Party, who are usually in favour of renewable energy.

Nicole Haydock, joint co-ordinator at the party, said: “In spite of our support for renewable energy, Bury Greens have backed the local resident’s campaign RAWS against this particular planning application from day one.”

Comments (4)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

6:00pm Thu 13 Mar 14

tinton says...

Once again Bury Times have reported on this matter in a biased fashion, giving most of the space to PR from Peel-Tamar and failing to explain the basis for objections. The Green Party commissioned an independent environmental assessment which showed the Quarry site to be topographically unsuitable and potentially hazardous for the operating of an AD plant, as well as too close to residential areas and school. The fears about foul odours are based on REAL problems at exisiting AD Plants where local communities have been blighted with a stench described as "a mixture of dog muck and burnt plastic", and these problems are ongoing and failed to be corrected by the Environment Agency. The problems occur frequently when AD Plants are situated too close to residential areas, as the Quarry is, in addition to the well-like site preventing free dispersal of emissions and odours. Peel and Tamar have avoided any open public debate or questions and given as little notice as possible for the matter to be publicised by others. I wonder why the Bury Times is so keen to promote this company rather than give a truly balanced report and support the local community.
Once again Bury Times have reported on this matter in a biased fashion, giving most of the space to PR from Peel-Tamar and failing to explain the basis for objections. The Green Party commissioned an independent environmental assessment which showed the Quarry site to be topographically unsuitable and potentially hazardous for the operating of an AD plant, as well as too close to residential areas and school. The fears about foul odours are based on REAL problems at exisiting AD Plants where local communities have been blighted with a stench described as "a mixture of dog muck and burnt plastic", and these problems are ongoing and failed to be corrected by the Environment Agency. The problems occur frequently when AD Plants are situated too close to residential areas, as the Quarry is, in addition to the well-like site preventing free dispersal of emissions and odours. Peel and Tamar have avoided any open public debate or questions and given as little notice as possible for the matter to be publicised by others. I wonder why the Bury Times is so keen to promote this company rather than give a truly balanced report and support the local community. tinton
  • Score: 15

6:07pm Thu 13 Mar 14

tinton says...

In addition, the 175 temporary construction jobs may not be sourced locally, but specialists brought in from elsewhere, and the 10 permanent jobs (mysteriously increased from the original 5) would most likely be counteracted by losses to other local businesses when visitors are put off by the smells etc, and even local people may prefer to shop elsewhere. How on earth they come up with a £15 million boost to the local economy, when the plant will be run solely for the benefit of the company, who knows.
In addition, the 175 temporary construction jobs may not be sourced locally, but specialists brought in from elsewhere, and the 10 permanent jobs (mysteriously increased from the original 5) would most likely be counteracted by losses to other local businesses when visitors are put off by the smells etc, and even local people may prefer to shop elsewhere. How on earth they come up with a £15 million boost to the local economy, when the plant will be run solely for the benefit of the company, who knows. tinton
  • Score: 13

6:44pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Babbar Divino says...

Well said tinton. The anaerobic digestion facility will be disastrous for the area. There are 1,470 local people on paper who are not sucked in by Peel and Tamar's propaganda. It will be interesting to see if there are people on the council that are?
Well said tinton. The anaerobic digestion facility will be disastrous for the area. There are 1,470 local people on paper who are not sucked in by Peel and Tamar's propaganda. It will be interesting to see if there are people on the council that are? Babbar Divino
  • Score: 11

10:31pm Thu 13 Mar 14

Rammy Born says...

I take issue with several erroneous comments made in this article!....firstly.
..

"The plans have been met with sizeable local opposition, with 1,470 people formally objecting to the site"....

...Bury council have not seen fit to update the total of objections for approximately the last 2 weeks! They had previously stated they would take and record objections up until tomorrow March the 14th, this they have clearly NOT done as I being the administrator of the RAWS facebook page have watched day after day new members to the page stating they have added their objections, but the total shown on Bury planning portal has not moved!! I in fact run another on-line petition that has currently more than 2,100 objections and growing by the day!

Secondly........

"Peel says that the plant would provide a source of clean energy for the concrete products business run by Marshalls, and would deliver a £15 million boost to the local economy."

...Peel or Tamar have not provided a shred of evidence to back this totally spurious claim of generating an extra £15 million for the local economy! They themselves have stated it will only create 5 full time jobs and with the decimation to the local tourist and hospitality sector of the Ramsbottom valley, the loss of jobs and loss of reputation as a clean town in which to live and raise children, their £15 million boost is actually closer to a minus £15 million loss in jobs, tourist pound, and loss in property values which ALWAYS accompanies these AD plants wherever they are built!

Thirdly...

"David Morrell, group head of sustainability at Marshalls, said: “Anaerobic digestion is a highly responsible way of dealing with organic waste — directing waste to the anaerobic digestion facility in Ramsbottom, rather than to landfill, would result in a significant displacement of approximately 30,000 tonnes per year of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

....David Morrells total misrepresentation and massaging of the facts are so ridiculous I'm astonished someone showing this level of ignorance could be a spokesman for such an important issue as climate change!
He says in his statement "directing waste to the anaerobic digestion facility in Ramsbottom"....... This AD proposal would not be taking waste from local suppliers as they are NOT part of the wider Greater Manchester waste plan and as such have to ship waste into Ramsbottom over great distance simply adding thousands more tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere by thousands more lorry movements than if they had agreement with the GM waste plan!! Peel & Tamar have been asked about this issue previously but only use the excuse 'this is commercially confidential information'........
I think they meant to say "conveniently confidential"!

This proposal is obviously so 'green', even the Green party object to it for it's spurious, incorrect, and totally misleading claims.....and for what? To create 5 jobs?.......it is likely to destroy many, many times more jobs, destroy the local economy, destroy the local tourist trade, and make Ramsbottom a filthy and smelly town of ill-repute where you would not want to raise a family for fears of the pollution, the dangerous roads filled with lorries, and the poor job prospects in a contracting local economy.

Who will this advantage!? NOT Ramsbottom or its residents, NOT the local economy, NOT our children or future generations, NOT the local quality of life, NOT the air we breathe, and NOT Bury Council as they will lose financially, and significantly! ........but the only ones to make any advantage of this and what this project has really been all about from the start is..........YES! the bank balance of a company (Peel) whose only objective is to rape, destroy, and exploit vast areas of the North West for their own gain. What a disgusting company totally devoid of any ethics, care for communities, and morality in their chase for the biggest bank balance!
I take issue with several erroneous comments made in this article!....firstly. .. "The plans have been met with sizeable local opposition, with 1,470 people formally objecting to the site".... ...Bury council have not seen fit to update the total of objections for approximately the last 2 weeks! They had previously stated they would take and record objections up until tomorrow March the 14th, this they have clearly NOT done as I being the administrator of the RAWS facebook page have watched day after day new members to the page stating they have added their objections, but the total shown on Bury planning portal has not moved!! I in fact run another on-line petition that has currently more than 2,100 objections and growing by the day! Secondly........ "Peel says that the plant would provide a source of clean energy for the concrete products business run by Marshalls, and would deliver a £15 million boost to the local economy." ...Peel or Tamar have not provided a shred of evidence to back this totally spurious claim of generating an extra £15 million for the local economy! They themselves have stated it will only create 5 full time jobs and with the decimation to the local tourist and hospitality sector of the Ramsbottom valley, the loss of jobs and loss of reputation as a clean town in which to live and raise children, their £15 million boost is actually closer to a minus £15 million loss in jobs, tourist pound, and loss in property values which ALWAYS accompanies these AD plants wherever they are built! Thirdly... "David Morrell, group head of sustainability at Marshalls, said: “Anaerobic digestion is a highly responsible way of dealing with organic waste — directing waste to the anaerobic digestion facility in Ramsbottom, rather than to landfill, would result in a significant displacement of approximately 30,000 tonnes per year of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. ....David Morrells total misrepresentation and massaging of the facts are so ridiculous I'm astonished someone showing this level of ignorance could be a spokesman for such an important issue as climate change! He says in his statement "directing waste to the anaerobic digestion facility in Ramsbottom"....... This AD proposal would not be taking waste from local suppliers as they are NOT part of the wider Greater Manchester waste plan and as such have to ship waste into Ramsbottom over great distance simply adding thousands more tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere by thousands more lorry movements than if they had agreement with the GM waste plan!! Peel & Tamar have been asked about this issue previously but only use the excuse 'this is commercially confidential information'........ I think they meant to say "conveniently confidential"! This proposal is obviously so 'green', even the Green party object to it for it's spurious, incorrect, and totally misleading claims.....and for what? To create 5 jobs?.......it is likely to destroy many, many times more jobs, destroy the local economy, destroy the local tourist trade, and make Ramsbottom a filthy and smelly town of ill-repute where you would not want to raise a family for fears of the pollution, the dangerous roads filled with lorries, and the poor job prospects in a contracting local economy. Who will this advantage!? NOT Ramsbottom or its residents, NOT the local economy, NOT our children or future generations, NOT the local quality of life, NOT the air we breathe, and NOT Bury Council as they will lose financially, and significantly! ........but the only ones to make any advantage of this and what this project has really been all about from the start is..........YES! the bank balance of a company (Peel) whose only objective is to rape, destroy, and exploit vast areas of the North West for their own gain. What a disgusting company totally devoid of any ethics, care for communities, and morality in their chase for the biggest bank balance! Rammy Born
  • Score: 14

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree