Second waste transfer plan rejected in eight days

Burnham residents celebrate outside South Bucks District Council yesterday Burnham residents celebrate outside South Bucks District Council yesterday

A SECOND plan to build a waste transfer station in south Bucks has been rejected in the space of eight days – to the delight of campaigners.

A proposal was tabled by South Bucks District Council to make Dropmore Road Depot in Burnham a waste transfer site where lorries bulk up rubbish.

But its planning committee rejected it on Wednesday.

The decision, which went against officers' recommendation, was made at a stormy public meeting, littered with angry outbursts.

Last week, a similar proposal for Amersham was rejected by a Buckinghamshire County Council committee.

The council has already approved a waste transfer station at High Heavens in Booker, Great Marlow where rubbish will be bulked up before going to a new incinerator, in Calvert, north Bucks.

Resident Chris Hill, who lives directly next to the site in Dropmore Road, spoke against it at the meeting.

Mr Hill, a photographer, told the BFP: “I'm absolutely delighted it has been rejected. Because it was recommended for approval we were fearing the worst.”

Leading campaigner Carroll Bolden, of Chalk Pit Lane, said there had been much anxiety among householders.

She said. “I'm delighted, though I don't suppose this will be the end of it. We were expecting a big fight and this is a step in the right direction.”

There were 147 objections to the plan.

Concerns centred around the extra heavy vehicles travelling along tight lanes and the potential danger it might pose for nearby Dropmore Infant School, as well as extra noise.

Passionate residents, who packed into the meeting, made their feelings clear in a tempestuous debate.

There was controversy, in particular, that committee member Cllr Bill Lidgate, the Cabinet member responsible for waste, was allowed to speak to support the plan, even though he would not vote.

Officers said he was allowed to give his views, but this angered residents.

Chairman Cllr Jacquetta Lowen-Cooper threatened at one point that to make the committee sit in private if public interruptions persisted.

Andy Owen, senior planner at Biffa, the council's partner in the project, said there was already planning permission on the site for a depot and there were no restrictions on HGV along the road.

He admitted traffic would increase but said noise would be limited by restrictions.

It is possible the decision could be appealed.

Comments (12)

5:42pm Thu 9 Aug 12

wayneo says...

Looks like Booker residents have, for want of a better expression.....shaft
ed.
Looks like Booker residents have, for want of a better expression.....shaft ed. wayneo

11:31pm Thu 9 Aug 12

gpn01 says...

That's two of the South Buck Waste Transfer sites rejected. Next biggie is the plan for Calvert. If that's rejected too then there'll only be how many sites to cover the whole of the area?
That's two of the South Buck Waste Transfer sites rejected. Next biggie is the plan for Calvert. If that's rejected too then there'll only be how many sites to cover the whole of the area? gpn01

9:57am Fri 10 Aug 12

Joe Ordinary says...

It is difficult to believe that 'the professionals' asked to consider the viability of the proposal did not consider " the extra heavy vehicles travelling along tight lanes and the potential danger it might pose for nearby Dropmore Infant School, as well as extra noise". Having done so they concluded that it was apprpriate to locate the "Dropmore Road Depot in Burnham a waste transfer site where lorries bulk up rubbish".
-
It is either the case that 'the professionals' are incompetent
or
the Councillors are so oversensitive to / fearful of the electoral impact of the predictable opinions of those living in close proximity to the site that they are not prepared to do their job, i.e. make difficult decisions on behalf of all of their constituents
or
it must be accepted that a vocal minority will be allowed to stop the process of developing an EfW facility in the county which, it has been agreed, is necessary to address the Refuse Disposal needs of the county to address its legal liabilities.
-
Which is it?
It is difficult to believe that 'the professionals' asked to consider the viability of the proposal did not consider " the extra heavy vehicles travelling along tight lanes and the potential danger it might pose for nearby Dropmore Infant School, as well as extra noise". Having done so they concluded that it was apprpriate to locate the "Dropmore Road Depot in Burnham a waste transfer site where lorries bulk up rubbish". - It is either the case that 'the professionals' are incompetent or the Councillors are so oversensitive to / fearful of the electoral impact of the predictable opinions of those living in close proximity to the site that they are not prepared to do their job, i.e. make difficult decisions on behalf of all of their constituents or it must be accepted that a vocal minority will be allowed to stop the process of developing an EfW facility in the county which, it has been agreed, is necessary to address the Refuse Disposal needs of the county to address its legal liabilities. - Which is it? Joe Ordinary

10:12am Fri 10 Aug 12

miccles says...

Personally, i think Alex Collingswood, and WDC, have been pussyfooting this, and have just let this happen at Booker, if WDC put up a fight, then i'm sure Booker would be free.

The leaders of BCC and WDC, tbh, should be looked at, they both seem to be on the fiddle.
Personally, i think Alex Collingswood, and WDC, have been pussyfooting this, and have just let this happen at Booker, if WDC put up a fight, then i'm sure Booker would be free. The leaders of BCC and WDC, tbh, should be looked at, they both seem to be on the fiddle. miccles

10:46am Fri 10 Aug 12

BOOKERite says...

Come on WDC please now come to your senses and stop the WTS at High Heavens. The route from the motorway to the proposed site is far too dangerous to be allowed. Prove to the people of Cressex and Booker that you are not out to destroy the area.
Come on WDC please now come to your senses and stop the WTS at High Heavens. The route from the motorway to the proposed site is far too dangerous to be allowed. Prove to the people of Cressex and Booker that you are not out to destroy the area. BOOKERite

11:02am Fri 10 Aug 12

TheHorsesMouth says...

wayneo wrote:
Looks like Booker residents have, for want of a better expression.....shaft

ed.
And they have already tarmac'd part of Cressex Road in readiness!
...
The lorries will be rumbling past Cressex School every couple of minutes (in & out), but perhaps the local council feel that a few run-over teenagers will enforce discipline? Not the way to go about it I'd suggest,...
[quote][p][bold]wayneo[/bold] wrote: Looks like Booker residents have, for want of a better expression.....shaft ed.[/p][/quote]And they have already tarmac'd part of Cressex Road in readiness! ... The lorries will be rumbling past Cressex School every couple of minutes (in & out), but perhaps the local council feel that a few run-over teenagers will enforce discipline? Not the way to go about it I'd suggest,... TheHorsesMouth

11:14am Fri 10 Aug 12

TheHorsesMouth says...

BOOKERite wrote:
Come on WDC please now come to your senses and stop the WTS at High Heavens. The route from the motorway to the proposed site is far too dangerous to be allowed. Prove to the people of Cressex and Booker that you are not out to destroy the area.
Perhaps it is time to consider a direct route from the motorway and close the current access road that they are looking to rip up and replace with a wider road.
...
For a few meters more (OK couple of hundred) there could be a direct route to High Heavens from the M40 Junc 4 intersection, for all traffic (HGV lorries, Household waste trucks and personal cars on dump runs).
....
This new route would be a boon to the people in Cressex/booker, especially along clay lane where the traffic would actually be reduced if the current access road was closed. It would also be no further for the lorries, people of Wycombe or Marlow to travel and have the added advantage of allowing the road to be built whilst the old (i.e. current) small service road was in use. When the new route was put in the current service road could be de-commissioned and turned back to green belt.
...
Every-one is a winner,...why has no one thought or mentioned it before?
...
Yes the new road would be going over green belt, but if the old road was turned back to green belt and the existing few hundred mature trees (not to mention shrubs) along the current road were left as they are (instead of being ripped up and cut down by the widening scheme) wouldn't that be a benefit?
[quote][p][bold]BOOKERite[/bold] wrote: Come on WDC please now come to your senses and stop the WTS at High Heavens. The route from the motorway to the proposed site is far too dangerous to be allowed. Prove to the people of Cressex and Booker that you are not out to destroy the area.[/p][/quote]Perhaps it is time to consider a direct route from the motorway and close the current access road that they are looking to rip up and replace with a wider road. ... For a few meters more (OK couple of hundred) there could be a direct route to High Heavens from the M40 Junc 4 intersection, for all traffic (HGV lorries, Household waste trucks and personal cars on dump runs). .... This new route would be a boon to the people in Cressex/booker, especially along clay lane where the traffic would actually be reduced if the current access road was closed. It would also be no further for the lorries, people of Wycombe or Marlow to travel and have the added advantage of allowing the road to be built whilst the old (i.e. current) small service road was in use. When the new route was put in the current service road could be de-commissioned and turned back to green belt. ... Every-one is a winner,...why has no one thought or mentioned it before? ... Yes the new road would be going over green belt, but if the old road was turned back to green belt and the existing few hundred mature trees (not to mention shrubs) along the current road were left as they are (instead of being ripped up and cut down by the widening scheme) wouldn't that be a benefit? TheHorsesMouth

11:21am Fri 10 Aug 12

TheHorsesMouth says...

If the WTS really does have to go in at High Heavens (and I must say it is not really wanted) then put in a new road direct from the motorway as a concession to residents and removed the old access road from Clay Lane afterwards,...return
ing it to Green Belt!
....
This idea has legs!
...
Some-one at BCC & WDC please pick this idea up and do an Olympic sprint with it before they start cutting down trees along the existing service road (from High Heavens to Clay lane),...go on, be bold and go for gold!
If the WTS really does have to go in at High Heavens (and I must say it is not really wanted) then put in a new road direct from the motorway as a concession to residents and removed the old access road from Clay Lane afterwards,...return ing it to Green Belt! .... This idea has legs! ... Some-one at BCC & WDC please pick this idea up and do an Olympic sprint with it before they start cutting down trees along the existing service road (from High Heavens to Clay lane),...go on, be bold and go for gold! TheHorsesMouth

12:50pm Fri 10 Aug 12

TheHorsesMouth says...

The resident living in the dell between Hillgreen Wood and Holyhill wood would need to be compensated; as well as the farm at the dog leg of Ragman's lane.
....
The 400 yards of Ragman's lane between the dog leg and Pub would need an upgrade and I'd suggest the road goes the other side of the pub car-park, perhaps to a round-about to ease access onto Wycombe Road (that joins to the M40 Junction 4 intersection),...whi
ch I commonly call Marlow bottom road,...
....
Ragman's lane being single track with passing points has always been a bit of a pain and I'm only suggesting upgrading the last 400 yards to the main road, leaving the other 600 yards (or approx 60%) as is, so it doesn't attract more traffic and blight those who live at the high end of Marlow bottom,....
...
Trying for those Win-Win situations :-)
The resident living in the dell between Hillgreen Wood and Holyhill wood would need to be compensated; as well as the farm at the dog leg of Ragman's lane. .... The 400 yards of Ragman's lane between the dog leg and Pub would need an upgrade and I'd suggest the road goes the other side of the pub car-park, perhaps to a round-about to ease access onto Wycombe Road (that joins to the M40 Junction 4 intersection),...whi ch I commonly call Marlow bottom road,... .... Ragman's lane being single track with passing points has always been a bit of a pain and I'm only suggesting upgrading the last 400 yards to the main road, leaving the other 600 yards (or approx 60%) as is, so it doesn't attract more traffic and blight those who live at the high end of Marlow bottom,.... ... Trying for those Win-Win situations :-) TheHorsesMouth

12:51pm Fri 10 Aug 12

TheHorsesMouth says...

Let me guess,..it's sunny and Friday Lunchtime, so everyone is down the pub?
Let me guess,..it's sunny and Friday Lunchtime, so everyone is down the pub? TheHorsesMouth

12:51pm Fri 10 Aug 12

TheHorsesMouth says...

Accept me,... :-(
Accept me,... :-( TheHorsesMouth

12:52pm Fri 10 Aug 12

TheHorsesMouth says...

Off to do something about that now :-)
Off to do something about that now :-) TheHorsesMouth
Post a comment

Remember you are personally responsible for what you post on this site and must abide by our site terms. Do not post anything that is false, abusive or malicious. If you wish to complain, please use the ‘report this post’ link.

click2find

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